Authentic means REAL

Einstein's Word Puzzle

2012-01-08T22:50:00.009-05:00

Although we're missing the lead-up here, see if you can understand this argument based on an observation from Albert Einstein

In one area after another we find it impossible to act consistently with worldviews that deny an infinite, personal, creator God. Such worldviews fail the test of internal consistency and should be rejected by honest thinkers. Why is theism the only worldview that avoids such internal contradiction? It’s because the real world really is the result of creation. Because reality is what it is, inconsistency is unavoidable whenever we try to think and behave as though it all happened apart from God. But when we admit God is real, everything falls into place with perfect consistency.

Notice the point here isn’t just that belief in God will help you think better or to be more consistent in your views. The point is that theism is true.

Why can’t we make an aircraft shaped like a box? It’s because aircraft have to interact with the real world in a way that results in flight. So the shape of a wing is not arbitrary. It has to be shaped that way, because in the real world, the curve of the wing results in lift. Wings work because they are properly designed for the real world.

Likewise, our minds work when we align them with reality: the fact that a personal, moral, and rational God has indeed created us and our world.

Consider this comment by Albert Einstein, as he discussed how the progress of science depends on scientists freely trying different ideas to explain what they see:

The liberty of choice [in applying new ideas], however, is of a special kind; it is not in any way similar to the liberty of a writer of fiction. Rather it is similar to that of a man engaged in solving a well designed word puzzle. He may, it is true, propose any word as the solution; but, there is only one word which really solves the puzzle in all its forms. It is an outcome of faith that nature—as she is perceptible to our five senses—takes the character of such a well formulated puzzle. The successes reaped up to now by science do, it is true, give a certain encouragement for this faith…. [Albert Einstein, “General Consideration Concerning the Method of Science” in The Journal of the Franklin Institute (221, 3, 1936).]

In this statement, Einstein (who was not a theist, but did believe in some higher power) agrees with the point of this chapter. He compares the universe to a word puzzle.

Now think about what assumptions would be required in order to solve this puzzle.

1. First, before even trying to solve it, you would have to believe that it is a crossword puzzle, not just random marks on a page. This is just like needing to know the universe is reasonable.
2. Therefore, if this is a crossword puzzle, some thinking, planning being composed it. Otherwise, you have no reason to think words would fit and make it work out.
3. Once you do solve it, the fact that it works confirms the original assumptions, 1 and 2. This is why Einstein says scientific progress tends to confirm faith in order.

Here, you can see visually why approaching the world reasonably implies creation. But this becomes even clearer when you add the first word to the puzzle, a big word that lies right in the center, and which cannot be otherwise, you also determine how the rest of the puzzle must work.

The things we listed at the beginning of this chapter—our certain sense that “I am me,” that I can see and reason, that I am making free decisions, that I am a moral being, a creative being—these observations dictate how the rest of the puzzle works.

If we can’t believe these ultimately clear observations about ourselves, we can’t believe anything we perceive. Yet, all of these features of personhood, like the puzzle itself, require a planning, purposeful creator. This whole picture is just like the rocks on the hillside telling us we are about to enter Canada.

Our purposeful creator: not a vague force that could never account for personhood because it lacks personhood itself, but a true, personal being—he is the one we need to meet and get to know if we want to live life to the full.

Check out Discovering God now

How Likely is Fine Tuning?

2012-01-03T21:53:00.012-05:00

Here is a sample from a new section in Discovering God:

Cosmic Fine Tuning

During the past few decades, science has become increasingly aware that our universe, with its ability to sustain life, is astonishingly improbable. Only recently have physicists come to realize that over twenty variables involving physical forces, particles, events, and ratios between these have to be exactly what they are within an amazingly narrow window in order to sustain life. The chances that this situation would come to pass accidentally are so astronomically unlikely that it becomes statistically impossible.

Agnostic astrophysicist, Paul Davies, is a world-renowned expert and the author of several books on this subject. He explains:

If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [ Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) 90-91.]

And,

Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10^40, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. [Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984) 242.]

What do these statements mean? They are saying that key components of our universe are so unlikely that they could never happen by chance. Here is an illustration from physicist, Robin Collins, to explain what it means to hit a lucky draw when you have only 1 chance in 10^37:

Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. [http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html]

How likely is that? Not very, but there’s a problem. Any dime you drew out would be equally improbable—one chance in 10^37—so, why marvel that this one came out? Thus, naturalists discredit any argument from improbability.

But this is only the beginning. Now, suppose you put all these trillions of dimes in a giant cosmic hopper where you can spin it for good mixing. Then, instead of putting one red dime in, you put in twenty red dimes. Then, after spinning the hopper to mix well, a blindfolded man reaches in and draws out one dime. It’s red. But wait. You’re not done. Now, spin the hopper again to mix thoroughly and have the blindfolded man reach in again. Again, he draws out a red dime!

This process would have to be repeated twenty times, and the man would have to draw out twenty red dimes, and zero normal dimes. No. That isn’t going to happen. This is way beyond what mathematicians call a statistical impossibility. And yet drawing twenty sequential red dimes out of a batch this large is far more likely than what we see in the fine tuning of the universe. Fine tuning isn’t just one improbability, but a confluence of dozens of the most extreme improbabilities, mostly unrelated to one another.

When reading about fine tuning, you will notice something interesting: although scientists differ on how to interpret fine tuning (especially whether it points to an intelligent creator), they do not disagree significantly about the numbers. Accessing the actual math involved in fine tuning is beyond the reach of most of us. However, we can rest assured that with the level of hostility seen between naturalists and theistic explanations, they would definitely mention their disagreement if they had any. Instead, they only debate what it means, not the fact of fine tuning. [Footnote: Recently, a few atheists have brought forward arguments to the effect that the universe is not finely tuned, because some areas are not suitable to life. The thought seems to be that unless every part of the universe is finely tuned for life, none of it is. Others appear not to understand the argument, simply claiming that other kinds of life would exist if the universe was different. But what kind of life is supposed to exist in a universe made up of nothing but hydrogen, or nothing but black holes, or that has collapsed back onto itself? The consequences of variance in the finely tuned variables do not allow for any kind of life.]

What would naturalists say?

Instead of challenging the reality of fine tuning, non-theistic scientists have brought forward an explanation they call “the multiverse theory.” According to this theory, our universe is just one of billions or trillions of other invisible universes. Each one is different and most of them wouldn’t support life. But, if there are perhaps an infinite number of other universes, eventually one like this one is likely to happen!
It may seem strange that people are willing to believe in trillions of other universes that they can neither observe nor measure. But there’s a reason. Again, agnostic physicist, Paul Davies, comes right out and admits why the multiverse theory is appealing:
Scientists have long been aware that the universe seems strangely suited to life, but they mostly chose to ignore it. It was an embarrassment—it looked too much like the work of a Cosmic Designer... Today the mood has changed. What made a difference was the idea of a multiverse, which offers the opportunity to explain the weird bio-friendliness of the universe as a straightforward selection effect, without invoking divine providence. [Emphasis mine. Paul Davies, Goldilocks Engima: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? (NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008) 151.]
This is an amazingly honest admission. But ask yourself: is it really easier to believe in trillions of invisible universes than to believe in an intelligent creator? Why? Remember, the concept of a multiverse didn’t arise based on any discovery of science or mathematical calculation. It arose for one reason—to explain away the appearance of design in the universe, as Davies admits in the previous quotation.

What would theists say?
Theists look at the wonders in fine tuning and abiogenesis with a satisfied smile. This is exactly the kind of thing you would expect from an infinite, personal creator. Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” This is exactly what science tells us happened with the universe. Meanwhile, the appearance of sophisticated coding systems that are externally referential, like DNA, are not surprising either. Languages and codes are always created by beings with great intelligence.

Notice that an impersonal picture of God like that in pantheism (where God is in everything) can’t explain the incredible design we see. Only a being who could think, plan, and then purposefully carry out that plan could explain the facts. Neither could the finite nature spirits in animistic religion explain creation. These fallible spirit beings were themselves created, according to the folklore.

A God who might be sufficient to account for the universe we see and for the complexity of life would have to pre-date the universe itself; in all likelihood he would have to be infinite and without beginning. He would be “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalms 41:13).

Isn’t it amazing that the only religions in the world today that advance an infinite, personal God are Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? All three go straight back to one amazing book—the Bible.

The big picture
If we put some dynamite under a pile of bricks and blew it up, how likely is it that when the bricks fell to earth again, they would fall in the shape of the Taj Mahal? Somehow we intuitively know this will never happen. Although the system contains sufficient energy and the correct building blocks to build the Taj Mahal, something is missing. Even if we repeated the experiment millions of times over, it would never result in the Taj Mahal or any other kind of building. That’s just not how random things work.

Suppose that after one of our blasts, we found one brick lying atop another. Someone might say, “Look! This shows it’s possible!” No, it doesn’t. Although the building blocks and sufficient energy are present, the energy must be channeled in the very precise ways required to produce a complex design. [Footnote: One brick on top of another is a good analogy for those who claim the Miller-Urey experiment shows that abiogenesis is possible because a glass bell produced amino acids. But amino acids are very simple compounds that are no closer to functioning protein than a couple of bricks would be to the Taj Mahal.] In fact, every blast pattern would be very similar in appearance, and nothing like a building.

Of course, the more complex the design, the more difficult it is to believe it happened by accident and living organisms are much more complex than the Taj Mahal. The fine tuning of the universe is so extreme that it’s very difficult to even understand. Wouldn’t it be more sensible to believe that someone acting with intelligence and purpose has arranged things this way?

I’m not suggesting that this argument proves that a personal God exists. But it does strongly suggest that he exists and has created our universe. In fact, the more you think about it, the more likely you are to realize that the reality of a personal creator God is far more likely than any other explanation for the amazing design in our world. That is a key reason that world renowned atheistic philosopher, Anthony Flew, changed his view to belief in God. He explains:
I think the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries… the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.[Anthony Flew and Gary Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion Between Antony Flew and Gary Habermas,” Philosohia Christi 6. 2 (2004): 200. Flew, now deceased, never believed in Jesus or the Bible as far as we know.]

Check out Discovering God now

Why I'm Re-doing Faith that Makes Sense

2011-12-17T21:53:00.014-05:00

I originally wrote Investigating Christianity in 1987 after a night when my wife and I shared our faith with a couple of guys at a campsite. They were super interested, and inclined to go further in exploring Jesus, but there was a problem: they were headed toward Alaska and we were headed home. I knew I would probably never see them again.

I wanted to have a piece I could put in their hands that would embody some of the most powerful approaches we typically use in Xenos, but could think of nothing. Most books for non-Christians rely on the historical arguments for the resurrection and related approaches, but I, for one, don't consider those very convincing in themselves. I know many have come to faith because of such arguments, and I use them myself as collaborating arguments. I just don't feel such arguments carry the day with truly skeptical thinkers.

That's when I decided to write my own book. Tyndale House later picked up the book, re-titled it, and sold a ton of them. That book has lead many to Christ. I know, because they email me telling me how they came to faith through reading the book.

I'm hoping this one, Discovering God, will be better. By selling it as a kindle, nook, or apple ebook for 99 cents (the cheapest allowed), I'm hoping people will just give it as a gift to someone they've been talking to, and ask them to check it out for later discussion. Instead of being something we only give people after they come to a Bible study, this might be good to give beforehand. The print version should come out within a week. It will be retailed at $3.99.

I was very impressed as a young believer by the argument from fulfilled prophecy, because I saw this is the Bible's own apologetic, used in the Old and New Testaments throughout. Other evidential arguments are there as well, but far less frequently. In this piece, I've featured several of the best examples of fulfilled prophecy.

So why redo Faith Makes Sense, when it had a dozen printings and 150 thousand copies produced? Because all of that book is out of date today.

First, the style of writing in the early nineties is completely different than what people need today. Mostly because of the internet, today's prose is far more direct, punchy, and never wordy. People simply won't read as long as they use to. That's why I shortened the book by 20 thousand words.

Also, a number of the most persuasive arguments available today were not well understood twenty years ago. specifically, the argument from design as seen through abiogenesis and cosmological fine-tuning have really gained force in recent years.

In the next post I'll give some samples of the new material in Discovering God.

Finally, language changes every decade, and key words that were fine then are now ill-advised. I'm hoping that the wording in this new title will be accessible and will communicate clearly.

Relationships: How Deep?

2011-04-09T19:48:00.008-04:00

In my last post, I argued that the unity described in passages like Eph. 4 can only be referring to love relationships between believers in a local church, and that modern definitions are superficial and inadequate.

But how do we know what the New Testament means when it calls on God’s people to love one-another? Is our modern understanding necessarily deficient or superficial? How could we ever know what the inner lives of people in the New Testament church were like? Maybe their experience in church wasn’t much different from ours.

Here is where objective teaching meets interpretation and application to form a group’s ethos. We could take the call to speak the truth in love in a number of ways, some of them quite superficial. But New Testament teaching won’t let us do that if we face it honestly.

The “one-another” passages

One of the clearest ways to look at this question involves the so-called “one-another” passages in the New Testament. These passages, found scattered all over the New Testament form a baseline for what we should expect when it comes to relationship building and koinonia. Because the apostles repeat these calls in dozens of diverse contexts, they must be universal imperatives. Look at these selected examples and consider, in each case, what would be necessary before that passage could be any more than a dead letter.

Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

Serving is the concept of ministry. This passage is a plain call for serving love in the body of Christ. How could we possibly accomplish this if our only context for knowing people is a large worship service on a Sunday morning? Those who think the Bible never calls on Christians to become involved in smaller group fellowship are mistaken. Fulfilling these commands is inconceivable apart from some kind of small group involvement.

1 Thessalonians 5:11 Therefore encourage one another, and build up one another, just as you also are doing.

To encourage others effectively, you need to know what’s going on in their lives. You would have to be aware of their progress in various areas in order to know what to encourage. Likewise with the notion of building others up--how are we to do this unless we know each others' needs and progress? Unless we have a reasonably good idea of where others are in different areas of their lives, any attempt to build them up would be pure guesswork. Those who have worked to help people grow spiritually know that the transforming power of love and truth doesn’t work at arm’s length. This imperative assumes people have built good relationships with each other.

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another.

If we are to speak the truth in a life-giving way, we first have to let that word “richly dwell within” us. This suggests extensive learning--way more than the average western Christian today. But we would also have to know each others' lives well in order to not only teach doctrine, but to “admonish” (nutheteo)--a term related to our concept of counseling. This passage envisions Christians who are knowledgeable in God’s word, wise in its application, and engaged enough with each other to counsel one another's lives. Doing this with relative strangers or acquaintances is unrealistic. Would you accept admonition from someone who didn’t know you or understand your life situation?

James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.

Some churches have arranged to have people confess their sins through a screen to priests who barely know them. But this can hardly be what James has in mind. In the context of the New Testament church, this verse refers to something normal Christians do with each other. Most of us would find it difficult to open up about our sin problems with anyone unless we felt significant trust. To be as vulnerable as this verse suggests would take lengthy personal investment to build trusting relationships where people feel safe opening up to one another.

Ephesians 4:32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

Conflict and alienation are constant threats, preventing us from building a community of trust and grace. Many people come to Christ with obstinate habits such as hostility, insensitivity, suspicion, and judging others. Many lack the ability to forgive offenses and need extensive training in grace. Every local church would love to see their people acting like these verses describe. But any group that has tried, knows how difficult it is to get a group to move from fleshly selfishness to forgiving love. Close-in modeling, counseling, and admonition are essential to such a transformation. Teaching people how to practice grace with each other must happen in community, just as surely as teaching people to swim needs to happen in water. Too often, modern churches aren’t sure whether they have a problem here for one simple reason: their people are so disengaged and distant they rarely interact enough to take offense at each other--not exactly what Paul had in mind.

Romans 15:7 Therefore, accept each other just as Christ has accepted you so that God will be given glory.
Romans 12:16 Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly.

These verses aren’t just telling us to accept people we like. In the body of Christ, all are welcome. This is a tall order for any sizeable group of people. It doesn’t mean we can’t admonish unruly people, but it does mean we must learn to love them. Every healthy church has significant numbers of hard-to-love people, people with serious problems, including annoying relational dysfunctions. Obeying these passages will test the maturity and graciousness of everyone in the group, especially when people spend time and build close community. In healthy churches, difficult people are not only included, but often become unrecognizable compared to their former selves, and stand as powerful examples of God’s life-changing grace. Proper understanding of these passages rules out merely saying, “I have a friend I love and try to build up.” That’s not good enough. This passage is referring to the body of Christ, not to someone we already love. Two people who love each other is a nice start, but we are called to form Christian community with everyone.

1 Peter 1:22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart.

The language of these verses and others like them simply cannot be understood as a superficial definition of love too often accepted in western churches. To “fervently love one another from the heart” has to mean deeply committed and involved relationships. This is not describing simply a friendly demeanor toward others we see at church. Love like this is going to take time. Love like this will mean sacrifice.

Getting our bearings

Before deciding what you think these passages mean for the church today, remember:

These passages are all moral imperatives direct from God to us, and are not optional for serious Christians.
These commands are not linked to any particular cultural setting, like the first century Greco-Roman world (unlike, for example, women wearing veils, or greeting one another with a holy kiss). They apply directly to twenty-first century America.
The content of these imperatives applies to all Christians except perhaps those who are severely impaired. The “one-another” language makes it clear that carrying out these actions is not the responsibility of leaders or an elite group, but of all ordinary Christians. The leadership is responsible only to equip members so they can succeed.
These passages, in context, are not describing how we should relate to our families. Although we should certainly love our families, these passages are about the much more difficult setting of the church. Switching the intended venue from the church to our families would be another example of radical reinterpretation intended to reduce God’s call to something we are already doing (Matthew 5:46).
Disregarding any of these instructions would be sin--just as serious, and even more serious, than stealing, swearing, getting drunk, or watching pornography. After all, Jesus put loving others at the very top level of importance, second only to loving God. As James says, “Remember, it is sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it” (James 4:17)

Some western Christians become unhappy when studying the one-another passages because they already have set priorities in their lives that make obeying these impractical. While following these instructions from God may be difficult, and may be different from what we are used to, we must accept that this is biblical Christianity. We cannot claim Christianity is a livable teaching unless we substantially carry out these oft-repeated instructions.

Think about it: deleting from the New Testament every call for Christians to pray would fatally distort the Christian message, and it would leave Christians in an unspiritual, miserable state. So too, deleting the “one another” passages from the New Testament would destroy the spiritual vitality of the church and everyone in it. While we can always find churches that excuse us from following these instructions, we would only be fooling ourselves about true Christianity.

Honesty

As a Bible teacher, I’m aware every time I teach this area that some people in my audience begin to bristle in anger or uncomfortable resistance. Facing God’s word is often uncomfortable, and it should be. Strangely, even some Christians who take a hard line on a wide range of moral issues think nothing of ignoring and disobeying these very important moral instructions.

The first step in reforming our situation in the church today is to admit where we stand. Are we doing what God tells us to do? Have we developed the kind of dynamic, health-giving community of love described in these passages, where everyone is being equipped, is loving, is ministering to each other? Or have we accepted a version of the church where most people just watch and listen; a picture that comes nowhere near what God describes in the New Testament?

If we have a problem in the western church today, the best thing to do is admit it. We can rely on the grace of God to forgive and to help us change. But nothing will happen if we choose to justify a western version of church life that safeguards our right to be individualistic consumer Christians.

Ethos Part 4: Ephesians 4 and Koinonia

2011-03-18T11:59:00.008-04:00

Body life in action: Koinonia
I think one of the most majestic discussions of the body of Christ is in the book of Ephesians. Here again, Paul begins with a lengthy discussion of the nature and importance of our mystical union with Christ and each other. For three chapters he argues that God’s vast plan of the ages has been building toward this outcome.

Two pillars of unity in practice
Finally, in Chapter 4, he pleads with his readers to live out what God has already done:

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of [or “suitable to”] the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (vs. 1-3).

Notice that Paul extols the “unity of the Spirit” in this passage. This is not an organizational unity. It’s not an outward, structural unity where we all share the same church government. People have made huge mistakes during the history of the church by concluding that the key is a single, over-arching church structure or a single leadership entity.

Paul is referring to a unity that is spiritual and mystical. It’s the unity we studied in the previous post--the one that comes from our mystical union with Jesus.

Notice also that the last phrase urges us to “preserve the unity of the Spirit,” not to create unity. Paul is teaching that God has already built real unity into his body, by virtue of the mystical union. But how will this inner, spiritual unity ever come out into the light of day where people can see and experience it?

Relationship
The first clue is in verse two. Showing “humility, gentleness, patience and tolerance in love”--all these are referring to things found in relationships between people. Living out our unity in the body of Christ is not to be some strange or far-out thing, like a spell or a feeling that comes over people. Instead, we work out our unity by developing loving, deep, personal relationships between the people of God.

Wouldn’t that be something--Christian people who deeply loved the others in their spiritual community? It would be very impressive if these relationships reached the level called for in the New Testament writings.

At the deepest level, then, is the unseen, but real, mystical union. But over that and because of it, we are to build relationships that are deep, loving, impressive, maybe even amazing to the watching world. Jesus prayed that the unity between believers would be so profound and unusual that it would convince the world that he was authentic (John 17:23, c.f. 14:34-35).

Truth
But relationships aren’t all. consider verses 4 through 6:

For there is one body and one Spirit, just as you have been called to one glorious hope for the future. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father, who is over all and in all and living through all.

Here again, we see unity. But these seven bases for unity all lie outside our doings with each other. They are truths, or facts, that we did not create and cannot alter. Truth, as well as love, is a key basis for unity. In fact, truth and love have a dynamic relationship that forms the basis for what we should be doing. Paul calls us to bring these two pillars together in verse 15:

But speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ

To speak the truth in love; what does it mean? And how does that result in spiritual growth to maturity?

Sharing
In the New Testament, Christians gathered to share or exchange the life of Christ with each other. The New Testament authors often express this sharing, or having in common, with the Greek word koinonia. Koinonia comes from a stem meaning “common,” and so means to share or to have in common--to exchange something. The term is a rich one and has many applications, including the one here in Ephesians 4, when Paul refers to “speaking the truth in love.”

To develop true koinonia--or “body life” as some have called it--is not that easy. We must develop several background features if we expect to practice body life at the New Testament level. Paul explains in Ephesians 4:

Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ (v. 11-12).

Equipping
The process of establishing quality koinonia begins with the leadership, according to these verses. Those with spiritual gifts and roles associated with leadership in the local church have the task of “equipping” God’s people to do his work, or his ministry. One of the central parts of equipping members in the body is teaching them truth.

Paul describes this work in Colossians 1:28: “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ” (NASB). If we are serious about “speaking the truth in love” to one another, we will all have to learn the truth from God’s word at a much deeper level than most Christians in America have so far, as we will see in chapter 20. Any church that takes this piece seriously is going to have to devote much more energy and resources to the project of equipping people with the truth than today’s typical church.

Ministry
Why should God’s people be equipped? For “the work of service” (NASB) or “the work of ministry” (RSV). The last word in the phrase, diakonia, is translated both service and ministry in our English Bibles. That’s because ministry is serving people in love. Serving others is the business of the people of God, and properly understood, ministry is the active component in biblical love. Love in the Bible is not selfish love, but serving love, or sacrificial love.

Ministry comes in different forms--word ministries, service ministries, and prayer-related ministries. A full understanding of the New Testament concept of ministry takes some time, so we devote a chapter to it. Most ministries in the local church involve relationship building.

The fruit of ministry
People’s characters need to be transformed before they can be what God wants those who serve him to be. Paul tells us where the trajectory of building up the body leads:

[We are to grow]...until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13).

If this is what God envisions as the result of ministry, it gives us an idea of what will be needed in the way of equipping.

First, notice the words, “we all” (hoi pantes). What this passage describes is not for the few or the elite. God calls each and every one of us in the body of Christ attain to the level of maturity described.

This is also important because as the passage continues, Paul repeatedly uses the word “we” as the subject. In other words, every one of us is to be a recipient as well as a powerful minister in the process of koinonia.

Next, he mentions that we are to attain to “the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God.” For this reason alone, equipping God’s people will be an enormous task in modern America, where most new Christians begin in almost complete biblical illiteracy. Attaining to the “knowledge of the Son of God” (v. 13) probably means a lengthy time of study and personal discipleship. Even those raised in the church usually have only a Bible-story knowledge that is practically unusable in ministry situations.

Our characters also need formation. Paul envisions people reaching the level of “a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” (v. 13). Only those who have been significantly transformed by the Lord themselves can foster such character change.

Those lacking the ability to build lasting love relationships are not ready to play their parts as ministers in the body of Christ. Love-takers are not ready to give out in ministry. Self-absorbed or materialistic people are not ready. Addicts of all types are not ready. Immoral people are not ready.

Members in the church have to seek character transformation in each other’s lives, if they are to effectively give out in ministry. If we have a church full of passive listeners who aren’t growing spiritually, this whole picture breaks down; koinonia becomes an unreal concept. For this reason alone, we see that much more will be needed than what we see in many modern churches. How would the leadership of any sizable church even know whether or not people in the church are growing? How are leaders supposed to match counseling, admonition, training, and help to people’s needs? Vast swaths of our modern understanding of the church will have to be massively revised if the New Testament picture of the church is to be more than a perplexing mystery to our people.

Truth in love
As people become equipped in the truth and see substantial character change, new possibilities open. Such people are in position to do what Paul calls, “speaking the truth in love” in verse 15:

...but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head.

But what does “speaking the truth in love” mean? Does it mean that we tell people true things in a “lovey” tone of voice? Does it mean that we try to project loving feelings and a friendly demeanor when we tell people the truth?

No.

In the context of New Testament teaching, only one understanding of
this phrase makes sense: Paul is teaching that we should speak God’s
truth (based on his word) to each other in the context of love relationships. This is what transforms lives, according to this and other passages.

In the New Testament, love is not a smiling face or tone of voice we show people in the lobby at church. Neither is it just a feeling or demeanor we project toward someone. Jesus’ call to love others is far more costly than many modern understandings. Such superficial understandings of love--that it is nothing more than a friendly demeanor--come from the world, not from the Bible.

When Jesus calls his followers to love one another as he loved them, he explains that this means laying down our lives for them (John 15:12-13). He means we should build friendships with others and love them sacrificially as he did. Then, in that context, we need to teach, admonish, and encourage each other, based on the truth as taught in God’s word.

Here comes the time commitment. Here comes the interference with worldly goals and values. This means getting outside of my interests, my family, my aspirations, and getting into other people’s lives. No wonder the early church devoted extensive time to fellowship. They were taking the concept of speaking the truth in love seriously!

Koinonia and church values
Have you ever wondered why some groups seem to assume that people in the body of Christ should invest deeply into relationships and develop closeness, while other groups assume that you go to church and go home afterward and that’s it? This is a perfect example of an area where our theology and our values intersect to form a different ethos. Under some patterns of teaching, people never even try to experience real koinonia--they don’t even know what it is. But if we expound this concept regularly and deeply, people may begin to aspire to a new level of body life never known before.

Simply knowing what the Bible teaches on koinonia won’t be adequate; much more will be needed, as we shall see. On the other hand, failure to teach this area strongly will almost certainly short-circuit any hopes for a New Testament-style church.

Ask yourself: Why would people in a church assume they should pursue in-depth equipping? Why would they think they won’t be complete until they develop a meaningful ministry? Only deeply held biblical convictions that ministry is the birthright of every Christian, combined with the encouragement of the community will likely result in this outcome. Quality community requires that people understanding and believe at a deep level what the New Testament teaches on koinonia.

In our next section, we'll examine New Testament teaching that points to how deep our relationships need to be.

Altering Ethos: The Mystical Union

2011-02-20T16:13:00.007-05:00

Who cares about the theology of the church?

Before we can do and be the body of Christ, we have to understand what it is according to God. This is one of the biggest barriers to successful body life today: failure to understand what the body of Christ is. It would be a huge mistake to skip this section of the book. Author Mark Driscoll recently commented that at a pastors’ conference on the church he found that none of the pastors in his group could give a coherent definition of what the church is!

My experience is similar. People want to bypass this part and get to the question of methods. But trying to implement organic church principles without understanding what God teaches about the body of Christ will result in confusion, frustration, and probably failure.

Our mystical union with Jesus

In the book of Romans, Paul explains that we are identified with Jesus’ death and resurrection, and therefore we should present ourselves to God as those alive from the dead (Romans 6:13). This union with Jesus, this new position we have in Christ, is one of the most important, but often poorly understood, teachings in the New Testament.

Theologians call it the “mystical union” of believers with Christ. Our mystical union is very profound--not just a metaphor or a picture. It refers to something real; in some ways it’s more real than our temporal lives here. To be “in Christ” is to be united with him now and forever. Paul says, “The person who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him” (1 Corinthians 6:17 See also Romans 8:1, 9; 16:11; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 2:13; 5:30; 2 Peter 1:4). As theologian Charles Hodge said, “No doctrine of the Bible, relating to the plan of salvation, is more plainly taught or more wide reaching than that which concerns the union between Christ and his people.”

Our oneness with Jesus describes how God looks at us: he sees us in his Son. That means what is true of Jesus becomes true of us in the eyes of God. God directly links many of his most important New Testament promises to this spiritual union with Jesus. Notice how the authors of the New Testament use the term “in Christ,” “in the beloved,” “in him,” or similar expressions nearly 200 times.

What does this have to do with the church?

In Romans 12 we learn that the mystical union not only affects our identity as individuals, but also corporately, as the people of God:

For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another (v. 4-5)

This passage, like others, says that the same mystical union that makes us one with Jesus also makes us one with each other, or “members one of another.” The mystical union operates horizontally as well as vertically. This is why the New Testament calls believers “the body of Christ.” It’s much more than an illustration. The mystical union of believers is a divine fact: we are individually members, not only of Christ, but also of one another.

Why does Paul, in this same context, urge all-out commitment to Jesus, like when he says a couple of verses earlier, “present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship” (12:1)? What does that have to do with verses 4 and 5? Just this:

Commitment to Jesus is commitment to his body!

These are not two separate things, but one and the same. We are not just members of Christ. We are also members of one another. We cannot commit our lives to Jesus without also committing to the people of God. If we think we are totally committed to Jesus, we had better plan on all-out commitment to his body as well.

Anyone who truly understands the mystical union realizes that each of our lives has been joined to the body of Christ in a very profound way. Whether we live that truth out in any visible or tangible way here on earth is another question. But God has already settled the issue: “We are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.”
Think about these provocative words from Watchman Nee's classic, The Normal Christian Life:

This [corporate unity] is the very opposite of man’s condition by nature. In Adam, I have the life of Adam, but that is essentially individual. There is no union, no fellowship in sin, but only self-interest and distrust of others....
Yes, the Cross must do its work here, reminding me that in Christ I have died to that old life of independence which I inherited from Adam, and that in resurrection I have become not just an individual believer in Christ but a member of his Body. There is a vast difference between the two. When I see this, I shall at once have done with independence and shall seek fellowship. The life of Christ in me will gravitate to the life of Christ in others. I can no longer take an individual line. Jealousy will go. Competition will go. Private work will go. My interests, my ambitions, my preferences, all will go. It will no longer matter which of us does the work. All that will matter will be that the Body grows. I said: “When I see this...” That is the great need: to see the Body of Christ as another great divine fact; to have it break in upon our spirits by heavenly revelation that “we, who are many, are one body in Christ.” Only the Holy Spirit can bring this home to us in all its meaning, but when he does, it will revolutionize our life and work.

Do American Christians grasp their corporate identity in Christ? I have my doubts. Today, church is something you go to on Sunday, not something that you are. I know the church has to assemble, so maybe I’m being too fussy, but I don’t think so. I think we view the church as something external to ourselves, something I might go to if I have the time, something ‘over there.’ We tend to see churches as things we attend or join, or even as a building.

Instead, we should see the church as something I’m a part of, and whether I’m assembling with one group or another, or even if I haven’t been assembling at all, doesn’t change anything. Christians who fully grasp the mystical union see things in a fundamentally different light. All that we expect and all that we do in the church grows out of our understanding of what the church is.

Practical outworking of the mystical union

Few theological teachings have more impact on our view of the church than that about our mystical union with Jesus. If people come to view their church the way God views it, the other points raised in the New Testament follow naturally. As we will see, an organic ethos depends on an organic definition of the church rather than an institutional, structural, or corporate definition. In a word, the essence of the church is spiritual and inward, not external.

Some readers may think this is too abstract and theological to make a difference. Wrong! It does make a difference and a huge one. What the church does grows directly out of what the church is. For instance, why would Christians in a healthy church consider other member’s lives to be their business? Shouldn’t they focus on their own lives and let others live theirs? Why would we conclude that every single member in the church should develop a personal ministry? Why think that if one member is built up, all of us will improve? The answer to all these and many others is the same--“we are individually members of one another.”

Ethos Part 2: Altering a Church's Ethos

2011-02-06T01:53:00.007-05:00

Ethos is powerful. You've probably seen it yourself. One group is demoralized and distracted. They don't seem to know for sure why they show up. Another group is crackling with energy; people can't wait to serve. In one group, people are puzzled when someone doesn't want to go all out for God. People in another group are just as puzzled by full commitment. During the next series of posts, we will examine how leaders assess and lead change in group ethos.

A group’s ethos can be altered. You see this all the time when formerly powerful and lively churches turn drab and decline. You see the opposite as well. But just as rocks roll downhill rather than up, a church’s ethos tends to slide downward unless it is carefully nurtured and even re-inserted at times.

Maintaining good ethos isn’t easy--both during “in season” and “out of season” times. Leaders and members have to watch sensitively for shifts in people’s attitudes and outlooks and be ready to reassert truth. Otherwise, they may soon find themselves in a group that is nothing like the one they used to belong to or lead.

Changing a group’s ethos from something negative to something exciting and biblical is a major project. It involves a lot of work and time--maybe even a fight. But the payoff is awesome! In a group with a healthy ethos, people take upon themselves the tasks involved in building up the church without being asked. Initiative replaces inertia. Generous out-giving love can become so commonplace that people can’t imagine a group without it. Instead of leaders endlessly pleading to heedless members, they will find themselves scrambling just to keep up with the rapid movement of events and the urgent need for equipping.

The Bible and ethos

Since a group’s ethos includes both objective beliefs (belief in truths that stand whether we believe them or not) and subjective values or interpretations, we cannot easily turn to passages in the Bible that set us straight in these areas. However, the Bible is not silent on the subject.

New Testament churches had an ethos of their own, and some of that is embodied in explicit precepts or instructions we should follow. By reading carefully, we can detect other aspects not explicitly taught but demonstrated by example, and we should seriously consider trying to incorporate those as well.

Notice how the ethos was different in various New Testament local churches. Compare the ethos in Corinth with that in Jerusalem in Acts 2-7 and you see a striking difference. Notice how a strong group like that in Philippi, developed an unusual giving ethos from the beginning and never lost it (Philippians 4:10-19), while each church addressed in Revelations two and three seem to have a different ethos.

When we see how ethos shapes every aspect of behavior and outlook in a group, the question quickly becomes, “How do we get this healthy ethos in our group?” That’s where the book, Members of One Another comes in. To build healthy group ethos, you have to have a clear picture of where you’re heading. Carefully studying what the Bible says about the church is the most important step you can take toward that goal. Then, you need practical ideas for how to move from your status quo to the new position.

The New Testament picture of church life is definitely possible today. We are not talking here about something exotic that God reserves for the few. This outlook is God's will for all of us. If we don’t have it, that’s probably because we’ve departed from his teaching, or have accepted definitions and values that come from our modern, individualistic culture.

Consumer Christianity

In the modern west, the definition we most likely have imbibed (often without realizing it) is a consumer version of Christianity.

When you go to the store, you’re a consumer. You’re looking for something. You know you’ll have to pay for what you get, but the point is you want some things and they had better be good. If the products are lacking or over-priced, you’ll probably go to the competitor’s store next time. The store is there to provide things you want.

When the consumer mentality goes to church, nothing changes. The question for the Christian consumer is always the same: What’s in it for me? A church might “meet my needs,” or maybe we hear rumors that a different church down the road is better.

Church leaders realize they have to compete--who will provide the biggest blessing? Who can make people feel most satisfied with the weekend’s program? Who will put on the most impressive performance?

The New Testament picture of the church is incompatible with this consumer perspective. God declares in his word that the community of God is a gathering where I go intending to give out, not to receive. To the extent I do receive blessing, that’s only so I’ll be better equipped to serve. Instead of existing to “meet my needs,” the body of Christ exists to equip me to meet others’ needs. Ironically, according to Jesus, I will probably feel better in an out-giving, ministry-oriented church, but that’s incidental. My focus needs to be on self-sacrifice, as Jesus explains:

If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it (Luke 9:23-24).

This passage and its many parallels in scripture may well refer to one of the least understood concepts in western Christianity today. Nothing could be further from the consumer concept. Experiencing what Jesus describes will be very costly. There will be sacrifice. Taking up a cross is something you do when you’re getting ready to die. A cross is a place of agony. Ease and comfort are incompatible with this picture.

If you’re a modern western Christian, you may have some things to unlearn. Your whole view of Christianity and the church may be at odds with what God teaches in some very serious ways. In Members of One Another, we examine biblical images and teaching that paint a dynamic picture of the community of God, and those pictures may contradict what you have assumed so far.

If you just want reassurance that all is well with the western church as it is today, you probably won’t enjoy this book. But if your heart longs for something deeper, this could be a good first step toward actually experiencing what God has in mind for you.

What is Church Ethos?

2011-01-29T12:27:00.005-05:00

Adapted from Members of One Another

A local church’s ethos is the collection of beliefs and values that animate people’s view of church life and ministry. Here is where people’s theology and their values system intersect to form the outlook and attitudes of a group.

Ethos is a broader concept than theology. It includes theology, but has less to do with the group’s formal statement of faith, and more to do with underlying judgment calls involving expectations and application of truth.

In most churches, people generally buy into certain assumptions about what is appropriate and what should be expected from one’s self, from others, from groups, and from meetings. Many of these assumptions include a combination of theological and attitudinal content. Consider different possible answers for the following examples:

How much time should people devote to fellowship, discipleship, and evangelism? What should be the balance between time devoted to the things of God and time devoted to career, sports, entertainment, etc.? These questions have no exact answer in scripture, even though we could argue for some general conclusions like those in this book.
What does it mean to be adequately equipped for the work of ministry (Ephesians 4:12)? That’s a judgment call. We will see that churches answer this question in wildly differing ways.
What makes for a good Christian meeting? Different believers would answer that so differently that they would find it difficult to tolerate each other’s versions.
What is the proper balance between politeness and honesty in the body of Christ? What about confidentiality (or privacy) versus transparency? In other words, should believers talk about others’ lives and problems, or not? How deeply should Christians be involved in each other’s lives? When would a group be considered disengaged? When are they enmeshed, or lacking boundaries?
Where do ministry results fit in? How should we interpret poor results? Are good results always necessarily compatible with faithful theology? Will faithful theology necessarily lead to good results?
What elements should we see in those we consider leaders?
How responsible should individuals in any meeting feel for the quality of that meeting?
How responsible should members feel for the spiritual well-being of other members of their church?
What goes into a good time of corporate prayer? Anyone who has spent time in different groups knows how differently people answer a question like this.
How should Christians show love to one another? What constitutes a loving community? Here is a good example that demonstrates the importance of priority--many people might agree on most items we could assemble in a list of answers to this question. But what are the priorities? Which ways of loving are more important and which are less so? Should real love include discipline?
What should church leaders emphasize in their discourse? What should they teach, but not really emphasize as much? The issue of emphasis often accounts for the vast difference we see between different churches.
What kind of shortcomings and foibles in people should we largely ignore and forgive? What behaviors or attitudes are so negative something should be said?
How much should we depend on celebrity personalities, or complex organizational structures for advancement toward our mission goals? How much should we look to every-member ministry as the key to healthy growth?
What is the balance between efforts expended bringing people to Christ versus building them up in the faith?
What should be the balance between expending time and effort on things that benefit people in our group versus those outside our group?

You can see that these questions (and many others we could mention) contain theology, and that’s important. A church won’t have good ethos without careful study and teaching of the theology of the church. But these questions also contain subjective values that vary greatly from group to group.

Sometimes we find ourselves unable to even state the reply to such questions in words--the answers are too subjective for that. Yet, people in a given group will often look at a case in point and share a similar opinion: “That group is too soft,” or “those people are disengaged.” “That group is too man-centered,” or “that group expects too much from its members.”

When a group has strong ethos, people in the group will voluntarily adopt an eager, serving attitude. They think it's normal to suffer hardship, and that sacrifice is reasonable. They can't wait to give out, and are actively looking for chances to minister. New people coming into the group begin to pick up on these attitudes without any need for directives or pressure. Good ethos has an almost magical effect on a group as God calls certain models to members' attention and makes them want to follow.

Groups with good, energetic ethos are well-led groups.

2010-12-22T20:47:00.001-05:00

Hope people enjoy this lecture on the Sermon on the Mount.

"Radical" Upsets but Inspires

2010-12-05T19:29:00.013-05:00

David Platt's book is called Radical: Taking Back your
Faith from the American Dream. At time of writing, it stands at about 90 in Amazon sales rank. That means that out of the over seven million books on Amazon, this title is selling only ninety places away from number one! It's flying off the shelves.

I heard about it from a number of people who said they were reading it and found it provocative and even life-changing. After a certain number, I decided I didn't want to be the only one who hasn't read it.

Platt is a preacher in a southern mega-church near New Orleans. He has strong connections with missions, and has traveled quite a bit to missions works in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. His strongest sections come from the comparisons he makes between the hard-core thirst for the word and for ministry in developing countries, and the consumer mentality that predominates in too much of the American church--something with which anyone who has done much work in these ministries is quite familiar.

Reviewers that hate his book are those who argue that being rich and enjoying it is a good thing, and they resent his suggestion that we should give up all to follow Jesus. So he has the right kind of enemies! People I've talked to who feel impacted by the book feel that way because he dares to call into question the soft, bourgeois assumptions that penetrate all of us who live in such luxury and wealth.

I found the book stirring and exciting at a number of points. I'm even hopeful that if a book worded this strongly can command the kind of attention it is, maybe some will be able to read my own book on the western church that should hit Amazon next week. (Right now, you can only buy it from Xenos or me).

I think it's important, when writing on the church, that we tell the truth about where we're at, and what the Bible says. But at the same time, we need to include positive ideas for change, and to his credit, Platt has stories of extraordinary sacrifice by wealthy Americans that clearly show our case is not hopeless. I hope my piece will be judged to be positive rather than negative as well.

I'm not into the lordship rhetoric Platt brings, and his approach is somewhat individualistic--everyone decides to do a ministry somewhere, but it's not cohesive. Much of the giving might be un-strategic, like giving an inner city poor person your video game box. But I'm not going to pick at his points, because I think this is good book. He calls for outreach, disciple making, and simple living. All good. All needed.

It kills me to wonder how many American readers will actually do what he suggests, like capping their income and selling their possessions to give to the poor. Many are reading it, but will any act on it? According to him, some people in his church are acting.

Anything that could stir people the way this one has must be saying something right. Read it.

Acts 19 4 stories Part 1

2010-02-28T23:02:00.004-05:00

This series of four seemingly unrelated stories were selected by Luke (with Paul) to tell us something about the remarkable revival in Ephesus. What is the common thread? 5 part series

Why Pleasure seeking Fails

2010-02-07T22:34:00.001-05:00

Just like today, the hedonists seeking self-gratification were able to see their need for Christ.

More Evidence

2010-01-16T17:47:00.004-05:00

The evidence that rampant materialism and wholesale rejection of moral norms and rising narcissism is destroying young people continues to mount.

Martha Irvine's article for the Canadian press is an article on a recent study headed by Jean Twenge, a San Diego State University psychology professor, and five other universities. The study is based on over 77,000 student who took the MMPI test in 2007 and during the Great Depression in 1938.

The changes measured were striking. On mental health problems, "five times as many students in 2007 surpassed thresholds in one or more mental health categories, compared with those who did so in 1938."

They also documented greatly elevated levels of "'hypomania,' a measure of anxiety and unrealistic optimism (from 5 per cent of students in 1938 to 31 per cent in 2007," and depression, which went from from 1 per cent to 6 per cent.

Twenge said the most current numbers may even be low given all the students taking antidepressants and other psychotropic medications, which help alleviate symptoms the survey asks about.

Twenge earlier documented similar problems in young people today in Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled - and More Miserable Than Ever Before.

"Several studies also have captured the growing interest in being rich, with 77 per cent of those questioned for UCLA's 2008 national survey of college freshmen saying it was "essential" or "very important" to be financially well off."

Twenge has a website about her new book, The Narcissism Epidemic which documents the current shift affecting both students and their parents in America.

The Growing Backlash Against Overparenting

2009-12-06T11:36:00.010-05:00

Time author, Nancy Gibbs, has written a hilarious and insightful article on the new American frenzy for driving kids to worldly success. In this one, she claims there is now a revolution rising against the extremes that have characterized recent thinking about parenting.

Research is accumulating rapidly showing how damaging the new ultra-materialism/prestige drive for kids. Gibbs cites some of this research and the top selling Nurture Shock contains more. That's next on my list.

This neurotic and evil trend in how to raise kids results in what college "deans described freshmen as 'crispies,' who arrived at college already burned out, and 'teacups,' who seemed ready to break at the tiniest stress," according to Gibbs. We encounter these kids in our student ministry constantly. They lack healthy relationships and have been trained to drop everything, including their allegiance to Jesus and their community for any opportunity for advancement in sports or academics--even trivial opportunities.

A recent case involved a high school sophomore who has struggled with drug use and sexual sin but made a second decision to get serious with Christ. He began making progress for the first time. Coming from a weak Christian family, he was urged to join a school sports team. Workouts extend throughout the weekend, after school daily, and even before school.

He's sinking dozens of hours into this sport, losing contact with the believers who were helping him to get away from his habits, and will likely drift back into his habits and lose the chance he had to break away. It's highly doubtful that wrestling will ever play a role in his life in the future. Meanwhile, if he goes back into partying and sex (like his team mates on the sports team) he may ruin his life.

All around us are examples in the millions of American young people who lose their interest in the things of God, as I've documented here before. In the face of this wholesale abandonment of the church and the Lord, the only thing many Christian parents can think of is pushing for yet another sport or learning mandarin in elementary school. Gibbs describes one insane scenario after another in her article.
One of the biggest hurdles for leaders in this area is simply convincing parents that something has changed. Even though the change is well-documented, parents look with skepticism at the data. Alissa Quart cites research from the U. of Michigan for this chart:
(Alissa Quart, Hothouse Kids; The Dilemma of the Gifted Child, 69, 70).

This chart shows a coincident increase in working hours for parents in America, according to Newsweek:

So we are confronted with a level of zeal for worldly advancement not seen in our lifetimes, and the saddest part may be the unwillingness of the church in America to call any of this into question. Eerie silence is all we hear from the Christian publishing world, while the biggest and most successful churches in our country embrace the prosperity gospel.

My New Book on the Church

2009-10-24T15:07:00.007-04:00

I'm working on a big book with the working title:

Members of One Another:
Building a biblical ethos into your church

that could rock the church in America if people read it. I'm sure I'll get flack aplenty from this one.

I just got word that my recent book, Satan and his Kingdom has gone back for a third printing after being released in June, so that probably means I'll get an offer on this book, even if it is too extreme for some.

I've just finished putting up part two of a lecture from Acts 2 that contains some of the basic ideas I'm arguing in the book. Now you can hear Part 1 and Part 2

New Youtube Lecture

2009-09-01T00:36:00.002-04:00

Here's the playlist for my lecture at Xenos Summer Institute. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2AB8D1C51F2ACB54

This year the institute was on Call to Joy and Pain, inspired by Ajith Fernando's book by that title. My lecture argued that much of our voluntary pain in the Christian life results from spiritual warfare.

If you like it, be sure to share.

OT Mosaic of Jesus

2009-06-28T14:00:00.002-04:00

I just posted a new lecture on Acts that includes discussion of how OT typology in the temple, the festival calendar, and prophecy became like a mosaic, or encoded puzzle of Jesus on the cross. Understood only at the last moment, this mosaic could not have been a human creation.

Satan and His Kingdom

2009-04-26T14:34:00.010-04:00

I'm starting to get pumped about the upcoming release of my new book, Satan and His Kingdom. I got the back cover this week.

Since you can't read it, here are some closeups of the blurbs--pretty good! These are respected reviewers. The others will be on the first page.

Have you ever wondered why the disciples had so much trouble figuring Jesus out? After all, they had all the Old Testament prophecies. Jesus was right there with them. Dennis McCallum's thesis?that all the data is in the Bible but it wasn't until after the resurrection that Jesus connected the dots?is most intriguing. It also explains why the devil so miscalculated the outcome of his plot to kill Jesus. Read with your Bible open and you'll learn how to gain victory in our contemporary war with darkness.?
Gerry Breshears, PhD, Professor of Theology, Western Seminary

Also my old buddy, Dave Early, who has taken on the leadership of the church planting school at Liberty.

"Stop reading these endorsements! Start reading this book! Dennis is a ministry veteran, a gifted leadership practitioner, and a diligent student of God's Word. His understanding of the power of the Cross and spiritual warfare is accurate and effective. Read it."
Dr. Dave Earley, Chairman of Department of Pastoral Leadership & Church Planting, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

"Dennis McCallum has written a balanced and thoughtful work on an often overlooked but essential topic: the reality of Satan and his practices as he misrepresents God's goodness and misleads humanity into believing in its own goodness. McCallum writes in a biblical and realistic way, using thorough research to answer vital questions effectively. The chapters on Satan and Your Ministry are especially helpful, and ring true to reality. Here is a well-done book full of vital truth."
Dr. Bill Lawrence, President of Leader Formation International; Senior Professor Emeritus of Pastoral Ministries, Dallas Theological Seminary

"We have long needed a lucid, biblically sound presentation of spiritual warfare and the satanic kingdom. This is it, and it is both readable and deep. Everyone should read it."
Grant R. Osborne, PhD, Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

"Dennis McCallum writes about Satan and demons in a biblical, sensible way. I've read books about the spiritual realm that were sensational, opinionated, and extra-biblical. This book is different. McCallum stays close to the biblical text while writing an easy to read book. You will not only go away with a comprehensive knowledge of Satan and his kingdom, but you'll discover practical steps to overcome them."
Joel Comiskey, PhD, President of Joel Comiskey Group

I appreciate and thank all who took the time to read the manuscript, and for your kind assessments.

Essential Church has a Disturbing Message

2009-03-28T20:44:00.015-04:00

Rainer and his son wrote Essential Church: Reclaiming a Generation of Dropouts based on a nationwide survey of those leaving the church in recent years. Their findings are interesting and provocative.

The American church is dying. Conversions are declining in almost every denomination. Even in some of the more relatively healthy denominations, conversions to Christianity have stagnated... Page 8

Perhaps most startling is the gravity of how many exit the church and the pace at which this exodus is occurring. Each generation that passes loses more than the previous generation. Shock does not begin to describe how we felt after reading the research results. The church is losing the generational battle. Not only are we losing our nation to the ways of the world, but we are not winning our own children in Christian families. Multitudes are dropping out of the church. Page 14

They stress like others, that the loss is greatest among the young:

The average church is losing the young generation, and those young adults are not returning. Page 8
More than two-thirds of young churchgoing adults in America drop out of church between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two. Page 75

And their explanation makes sense, and squares with what I've seen:

The most glaring issue of estrangement for eighteen- to twenty-two-year-olds is the interminable gap between their personal beliefs and their church’s stated beliefs. … Only 53 percent of all young adult churchgoers state that they are in line with the beliefs of their church. To be blunt, God has converted our children, but we have failed to disciple them. Page 30

They document not only quantitative decline, but decline in quality:

One survey states that only half of churches feel that they do a good job of engaging the community and making others feel welcome. Additionally, only 40 percent of these churches feel that they have any real impact on the community of the world. This survey was taken among people within the church. So 60 percent of the people in our churches do not believe they are making an impact on their community. Page 55 56

They also confirm other sources indicating that the dramatic increase in busyness among Americans makes church involvement less likely:

We’re busy people. We bolt about our daily routine in a tornado of rapid activity. Time is a precious commodity and we fill our time with as many activities as possible. We cram one-hour tasks into fifteen minutes, and then we speed twenty-five miles over the speed limit to make up for the rest. We overcommit. We underplan. We procrastinate. We’re perpetually late. Then we complain about little sleep and no time for exercise or leisure. Americans spend their time like their money, using as much as they have (if not more) and saving none. Page 74

Through our research we were not surprised to learn that new and busy schedules often moved the church to a lower priority among the dechurched. Page 75

I was interested by their finding that those leaving don't feel bitter about the church, and still consider themselves Christians. They are leaving because they don't see any reason to continue.

Particularly with the younger generation, church is another time slot to fill. It is a check box on the weekly to-do list. The churches of the dropouts were not a place where they wanted to spend free time. It was the opposite. Church was just another time waster for them... droves of students are divorcing the church, and they do not cite irreconcilable differences. They do not leave mad. For many, no one compelling factor is pushing them away. They just want a little time off. They want their space. When they leave the church, there is no void. A gaping hole doesn’t form when they exit. They leave quietly, and the church continues on as usual. Page 75, 76

Apparently, a big part of this failure has to do with the lack of interest in college students on the part of churches.

Most churches do not have a college and career ministry for young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two. And the reason is not because these churches are located outside of college towns. Ten percent of the population in the United States is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four. That’s more than thirty million student-age people! Page 81

To me, this is incomprehensible, althoug I've seen this myself. We find most churches have little or nothing going on with college students--the most promising age range for raising up workers who serve God long-term. I think it goes to show that churches are more interested in adults who pay the bills than in raising up workers.

This is a good book. Recomended.

Where do the Jews stand in the plan of God?

2009-02-13T15:54:00.006-05:00

New Youtube Series Explores New Testament Teaching on Christians and Jews

Theologians have debated the status of Jews under the New Covenant since the beginning. By the second century, virulent antisemitism took hold of many church fathers, who had experienced persecution blamed on the Jews. This antisemitic attitude resulted in theologies where the Jews were "dealt out of the game" by God because of their rejection of Jesus.

Paul offers a refutation so such speculation, which may have already begun in his own day. Romans 10 and 11 are his best explanation of how God is working today, and how his ancient people play into that plan. This 6 part series on Youtube exposits these chapters. See it HERE

New Utube Series

2009-01-31T21:47:00.005-05:00

We've been putting teachings on youtube lately, and this new series is on the role of Suffering and Spiritual Growth.

Why I'm Writing on Satan

2009-01-23T00:49:00.007-05:00

Why write another book about Satan? I was recently asked by more than one young Christian what they could read to get the story on the Evil One. I had to pause. Screwtape Letters? That's good, but it's fiction, and doesn't really cover biblical teaching. Weirsby's book, Satan's Strategy? That's good, but real short and old. Doesn't go into much depth. Most of the others have stuff in that I don't think is taught in scripture.

Where can we look for a good overall study of scripture's teaching on Satan that shows hermeneutical restraint? That doesn't assume information not revealed? That covers the whole Bible's material on God's enemy? I don't know. In doing this book, I read about 25 titles. Almost all were either exaggerated and full of phony stories and unbiblical claims, or understated, presenting Satan as someone we don't need to worry about.

I decided to write. This book will unveil the fascinating story of the collision of God's kingdom and the Evil One's kingdom--the battle that we find ourselves swept into. The fascinating plan of God and our part in it.

I hope people are ready for this one. It's coming out from Bethany House in a few months. If you're interested, you can pre-order a copy now on Amazon here.

Quitting Church, by Julia Duin

2008-12-31T16:25:00.006-05:00

Duin's book is one of a parade of books coming out during the past few years on how people in the tens of millions are storming out of the evangelical church. Unlike some other authors, Duin is a professing believer, but like many others, not attending a church during recent years.

Her book exemplifies the paradox Christian leaders face today. The complaints raised in interviews with ex-church people present a contradiction: On one hand, people claim they don't have time to make the commitment to attend. They're too busy. She cites research predicting that people are just going to get their spiritual food from the internet and form what Barna calls "a church of one." The world-committed consumer Christian is exemplified perfectly by this guy:

“I want to go back. But it takes such a lot of effort to go there after working all week and doing errands all Saturday. And if you do go, you want something back. You need your batteries charged. …Church is not like that anymore. You get no return for what you put into it.” Page 33

This quote shows two of the biggest problems we face today. First is the fact people are so committed to the world system that it takes all their energy, so there isn't much left for God. Next is the fact that this is consumer Christianity--the bottom line is always "what's in it for me?"

But God sends us into the church for what we can give, not for what we can get. Accommodation to the world and to consumer Christianity is a bottomless hole that will never satisfy anyone, and betrays God's instructions.

At the same time, they complain that church is impersonal, doesn't connect with their lives, and superficial. These quotes are typical:

One of the top reasons people give for their leaving church is loneliness: the feeling—especially in large congregations that no one knows or cares whether they are there. Page 50

Duin comments:

Many churches have become like supermarkets or gas stations: totally depersonalized arenas where most people no longer feel a responsibility to be hospitable to the person standing next to them. … As for those who drop out, no one notices. Page 52

So, the superficiality I wrote about earlier combines with accommodation to produce a situation that makes everyone sick. At the same time, she points out that "The people I talk with who have found true community and then must leave it, due to family or job reasons, pine for it for the rest of their lives." Page 50

So, again, we see two problems. One is that people just "must leave it" (which is to say in most cases the world system demands they leave so they can make more money). The other issue is that true community is so awesome it should be worth giving up other values to keep it.

When will we stop trying to out-soft each other to compete for worldly-minded members, and call people to the New Testament standard for real body life? Wouldn't it be better to have a smaller church that had real serving community than a bigger one that's so bland, superficial, and disengaged that people wonder why they're there?

Why Church in America Cannot Succeed

2008-12-20T12:04:00.005-05:00

American culture contains constraints on churches that spell doom. Perhaps the most devastating result today is superficiality. In a superficial reading of the New Testament, leaders construct a church outwardly similar to the early church, but missing the key aspects that involve calling their people to sacrifice their time. The result is like a race car with all the lines and paint and tires but NO ENGINE! I've written on this problem before for my leadership class.

Superficiality - American church leaders tend to interpret the biblical picture of church planting in very superficial and non-demanding ways. They see leadership in a home church or small group as something that must not significantly interfere with typical bourgeois American middle-class living. American culture is placing increasingly heavy time demands on the modern family. Most American families are convinced they have to:

work long hours;
be available for any travel demands their careers may dictate;
belong to sports leagues;
keep their houses and yards immaculate;
clean and care for their late-model cars;
shop for the latest styles;
maintain their hobbies;
keep up with several weekly TV serials;
take their kids to every sports league and activity available at school;

If we add attendance at one or two church meetings per week, who has time to do any more?

When we compare American living to the early church, we see a striking contrast. In the early church they were "day by day" having meals together and meeting near the temple and from house to house. (Acts 2:46) This expression suggests Christian community took up a very large part of people's lives. Deep community like that described in the New Testament requires significant time investment into relationships. We can't drive up to the McDonald's window and demand community be handed through the window!

I have already argued that the "one another" passages in the New Testament become a dead letter apart from heavy time investment. Likewise, the training needed to become competent as Christian leaders takes a great deal of time investment. Becoming a man or woman of God ready to lead a flock for him will certainly interfere in a massive way with materialistic and entertainment pursuits that so dominate the schedules of adult Americans today. Like the rich young ruler, many American church members must turn away in sadness at the New Testament picture of radical Christian living.

The result of the divergence between the radical commitment of the New Testament church and today's convenient approach, where only our leftover minutes are devoted to spiritual growth and community is superficiality. Church leaders try to patch together some form of community outwardly like that in the New Testament, but without the devotion and investment assumed in the New Testament. They feel they don't dare call on their people for their time (or, they realize whether they call on them for time doesn't matter, because they aren't going to get it anyway).

But simply introducing a structure involving home groups to a church is not going to produce New Testament-style fellowship, let alone a church-planting movement. Although such groups may superficially resemble New Testament house churches, the heart of the matter is missing—men and women of God sold out to each other and the non-Christian world in the love of Christ!

In superficial groups people who aren't really close at all try to act like they are close. Likewise, superficial groups may substitute a scripted approach to ministry for real ministry. Leaders are told what to say and do during a meeting and during personal encounters because they don't understand the Bible or other people well enough to respond to situations creatively and spontaneously.

People who are seeing each other in a personal setting for the only time that week, or even the only time in two weeks cannot be expected to know each other's needs or how to meet those needs. The demands of personal discipleship virtually always are too high for today's superficial approaches to home group ministry (unless personal discipleship is also redefined in superficial terms). But without effective, deep discipleship we see little prospect of multiplication, either of disciples or of home churches.

In my next post, we'll discuss Julia Duin's new book, Quitting Church--yet another expose of the amazing stampede away from church today by tens of millions of evangelical believers. No matter how many of these exposes I read, I'm still amazed to see how little response there is in the evangelical church. I've decided to finally write a book on the church, but I'm feeling discouraged as to whether anyone will be willing to read it.

What is normative church involvement?

2008-12-10T14:24:00.004-05:00

I've been studying the "one-another" passages with some students, and it makes quite a strong case that we are nowhere near biblical standards for time and effort devoted to the body of Christ. Consider this one:

Let the word of God richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another

This is a direct command given to all believers in the body of Christ. What would be necessary before this instruction could possibly be more than a dead letter?

To be sure, people would have to take the time to have the word richly dwell within them--so that would be a significant level of training. I doubt that any 5 or 10 week class can accomplish this goal. Probably several years of discipleship and learning are implied.

Then comes the part about teaching and admonishing one another. Would you take admonition from somebody who doesn't know you? How would that be possible? You would have to know someone relatively well to even be aware of what they need admonition for. This admonishing each other assumes that we know each other. And that knowledge would have to be way beyond the superficial level of relationships we see too often in the modern church, where everyone is too busy to spend time investing into relationships.

Let's remember, this passage isn't referring to the example of the early church, which we could possibly dismiss because our culture is different than theirs. This is a plain moral injunction that is not optional for Christians.

So, when I hear leaders arguing that "our people are just too busy for that," I can't accept that we are preaching in a way faithful to scripture. If our people are too busy to do what God calls on them to do, it's probably because they have too many idols in their lives. Their entertainment schedule, their aspirations to drive their kids to become super-kids, their fussing with their house, these are the things making them "too busy" to do what God says.

On every side, people are bemoaning the low state of the church today, but nobody seems willing to consider a change to the level of involvement seen in the New Testament--that's just too extreme for modern people. But we need to see that we are not just dismissing the time-bound example of the primitive church, but the New Testament itself when we say this.

If the "one-another" passages are too demanding to expect modern people to live them, then the New Testament way of life has lost all credibility in our world. If it's not too hard, then we should stop making excuses for our people and call them to the high standard envisioned in scripture.

Strange Story Proves False

2008-11-23T12:12:00.003-05:00

A friend recently forwarded me a story about a megachurch pastor who sold the church's facilities and gave the money to missions. This story is going around various blogs--he got his from emergent. Here's part of it:

From the Associated Press –
Hiam Shatir may look like your average pastor, but he’s not acting like one. In a nation filled with expensive mega-church buildings popping up, Hiam instead chose to sell his mega-church, Crestview Community Church, and attempt to live into what he says is the call to “be the church.” And although many doubt him, Hiam just knew it was the right move to make.
“We just felt it was the right thing to do,” said Hiam, a businessman turned pastor, from his converted basement where he now administrates the church. “We couldn’t put our foot on the problem. People were sitting in the pews and not doing anything. They would come and sit and leave. And we began to ask if this is the Gospel.”
Crestview was known for its amazing stage productions, heartfelt contemporary worship, and relevant sermon topics often based on current events and pop culture. It quickly grew in numbers—adding two satellite “video campuses” and a recently launched online church campus—and was cited as one of the fastest growing churches in the nation. “Having someone validate what we were doing like that was really cool at first. We were really good at creating the ‘Wow’ factor that would have them wanting more,” Hiam says in reflection. “But I would go home exhausted and consistently wonder what difference we were making. I didn’t like that. And I just reached a point where I couldn’t do it anymore.”
In what many would consider a stunning move for a 8,000-member mega-church, Hiam and the board of elders chose to sell their recently developed $12 million dollar campus to a local technology company, which is now planning to convert the sanctuary into a manufacturing facility. “Selling the building was easier than we thought,” one elder stated.
So what made this ultra-successful pastor of one of the city’s largest suburban communities take such a radical step? Hiam shared that it was faith. “One day I walked into the main sanctuary, and it was empty. It was this huge building that we were paying a mortgage on and it was dark. I just had this sense of wonder if this is really what Jesus would do. Would he have created this building? And then when the economy took a downturn, paying the mortgage became our primary concern. But everyone was hurting. We had to let people go from their jobs. All of a sudden paying the bills became our primary motivation.”
Hiam shared that his messages became motivated by how much those people could give to the church rather than the Gospel. And then a moment of clarity hit me. “I was standing there on a Sunday and, right in the middle of my sermon, I just stopped. I looked around and just realized that, if we let go of this burden, everything would change. It was at that time I started to really question our intentions. At the same time, some really good people asked if we were living ‘missionally.’ Were we really releasing people to minister to their neighbor? I didn’t have a good answer to that question.”
Hiam began to doubt his own faith and purpose. “It was a dark time. More than once I told my wife I wanted to quit and go back to business,” Hiam said. “I felt like I was losing my soul. But the board of elders stuck with me, and they began to ask how we could begin to use money to solve real needs when we saw them. We suddenly realized we had the power to release people to be ‘missional.’”
Hiam wrestled with the decision over a six-month period. He knew that letting go of the building meant doing things in a completely different way. “The show would be gone, and, in some ways, that was hard for my ego to let go. It essentially meant trusting God to work in the people and not being everything to everybody. It was like we had new glasses on. We quickly realized that, before, a small majority of people were doing almost everything. They were burned out and completely exhausted. Now everyone has responsibility and purpose. So many people came to me, thanking me,” Hiam said.
When the building was sold, many felt lost in the transition. “We immediately lost about 30% of the people who attended our church,” Hiam shared. That number roughly translates to almost a thousand people. “Everyone called me and told me they just wanted a place to go on Sunday. They didn’t want to go out into the world. People’s primary concern was the loss of our children’s program.”
In talking with several families that had left, one woman expressed what has become a common refrain of ex-Crestview members, “Who will teach our children about Jesus? We just felt we needed a good children’s program and didn’t want to lose that.”
Life for Hiam and the church is now more complex but, he says, more rewarding. To accommodate the lack of facilities, Hiam took the radical step and converted his basement into an administration center. “We slimmed down everything and focused on following Jesus into mission. We asked what it would mean to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. We now meet once a month for a large gathering and meal, and put all of our focus on meeting in homes. It meant really getting serious about discipleship and putting our trust into the hands of our gifted leaders.”

My View
I wrote my buddy back and pointed out this story isn't as cool as some people think:

Well, I think you can see the problems - nothing for kids now, which is questionable. Also, that he had the church based on entertainment and doing nothing before the sale. So the real problem with this church wasn't that they owned a building, but that they had never built in biblical values for ministry and self-giving love, and had a big do-nothing congregation of takers.

His solution was to blow it up, which was, in my opinion, a negative and destructive solution. It wasn't his people's fault that they were apathetic, self-centered, and ignorant. That was his fault, and his board's. Instead of re-tooling the church and bringing in real Christian living, body life, and ministry mindedness, they just blew it up. Those people had given money for the facilities, and I can imagine them feeling messed over when he just got rid of it.

So, in a word, I'm not impressed. I think the whole story is one of poor leadership and lack of biblical convictions as to what the church should be. Then, realizing what they had was wrong, they didn't take responsibility for the mess and fix it (which would have been very difficult and taken years), they just went with a superficial solution of blaming the problem on the facility.

Only after wasting all this time did I realize the whole story never happened! At the bottom is a note that the story is just "satire" intended to stimulate thought. I wasn't happy to discover that, but it does highlight how one kind of superficial thinking (the entertainment-based model of megachurch) may be replaced with another kind of superficial thinking (kill all buildings, and we'll be fine). Building real biblical convictions re. the church is a lot more difficult than either of these foolish alternatives.

Romans 13 Real Love Part 1

2008-10-10T01:21:00.002-04:00

We're experimenting with using youtube videos to enable people to invite friends by sending the link. We're hoping people might become curious enough to come out to a teaching more readily if they see some of it. Directly below the video on Youtube is the "share" button where people can quickly email the link to friends.

Early Church Growth

2008-09-21T20:30:00.010-04:00

The period from the death of Christ until the end of the first century was the most fruitful in the history of the church. During these few decades, Christianity spread clear across the Roman Empire and beyond in to the Parthian empire, India, and North Africa. The best estimates put the number of Christians at the end of the first century at around 1 million. That’s an increase of 2000 times the number of Christians before Pentecost (perhaps 500). At this rate of growth, the entire world would have been converted within the next hundred years!

What is the significance of this phenomenal growth? Just this: Those who believe the early church is the best pattern for church life (like me) point to these results as an important part of their backing.

That's why I'm not happy with Rodney Stark's book, The Rise of Christianity, (Princeton: The Princeton University Press, 1996). Stark admits right at the beginning, "I am not a New Testament scholar and shall never be. Nor am I a historian..." (p. xii). His lack of expertise in these fields really shows in this book. (He's a sociologist). He lays out an entirely implausible estimate of only 7530 Christians by the end of the first century (p.7). This estimate is at variance with most scholarship. For instance, The World Christian Encyclopedia, estimates that by A.D. 100 there were 1 million Christians in the Roman Empire out of a population of 181 million. David B. Barrett, ed., World Christian Encyclopedia. A Comparative Study of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900-2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 3. Also see Kenneth Latourette: A History of the Expansion of Christianity, Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1970) 85.

Latourette observes, “Never in the history of the race has this record ever quite been equaled. Never in so short a time has any other religious faith, or, for that matter, any other set of ideas, religious political, or economic, without the aid of physical force or of social or cultural prestige, achieved so commanding a position in such an important culture.” 112. Of course Islam and Communism spread fast, but both used military force.

I agree with the earlier scholars. Stark is wrong.

In the first place, we can account for 8000 Christians within the first few chapters of Acts, unless these narratives are completely discounted. Stark frankly dismisses Acts on page 5, speaking of the "many thousands" claimed by James in Acts 21 and the 5000 males mentioned in Acts 4. He says, "These are not statistics...figures in antiquity...were part of rhetorical exercises." (citing Robert Grant). His basis for rejecting Luke's numbers is the out-dated estimate by J. C. Russell that Jerusalem only had 10,000 inhabitants. Historians at the time had much higher numbers. Josephus says that at the siege of Jerusalem the population was 3,000,000, a figure nobody believes. Tacitus’ statement that it was 600,000 is nearer the truth, but still too high. Most historians today believe it was 35,000 to 50,000 people, mostly based on the extensive water supply systems excavated in recent decades. This figure could easily include thousands of Christians.

Stark absolutely rejects the historicity of Acts. He says, "I shall assume there were 1000 Christians in the year 40." (p. 5) He bases his estimate on a straight mathematical formula assuming 40% growth per decade for 300 years, ending in six million Christians by the time of Constantine. But this is not how Christianity grew. The growth was far better during the early years and slowed thereafter.

Stark supporter, Richard Carrier distorts his sources. He says of Pliny’s famous letter to Emperor Trajan, “…he [Pliny] says he knows nothing about how they [Christians] are to be punished or even charged (10.96.1-2). This is proof positive that Christians must have been extremely scarce--to the point of social invisibility.” This is amazingly distorted!

Here is what Pliny actually says:

“The case seemed to me to be a proper one for consultation, particularly because of the number of those who were accused [of being Christians]. For many of every age, every class, and of both sexes are being accused and will continue to be accused. Nor has this contagious superstition spread through the cities only, but also through the villages and the countryside. But I think it can be checked and put right. At any rate the temples, which had been well-nigh abandoned, are beginning to be frequented again; and the customary services, which had been neglected for a long time, are beginning to be resumed; fodder for the sacrificial animals, too, is beginning to find a sale again, for hitherto it was difficult to find anyone to buy it. From all this it is easy to judge what a multitude of people can be reclaimed, if an opportunity is granted them to renounce Christianity.”

So we see that, contrary to Carrier, the Christians were actually so numerous in his province that temples were empty, and they couldn’t sell sacrificial animals or fodder. The temples were being abandoned! This letter is referring to Bithynia, which got a late start with Christianity. Christians in Rome were way more numerous. Notice how Tacitus refers to the “huge multitude” of Christians captured during Nero’s persecution (Tacitus, Anal. XV. 44). And yet we're supposed to believe that only 8000 were won to Christianity in the first century? See Adolf Harnack's list of early references to numbers of Christians, which, although mostly second century, show they were very numerous well before that.

The lesson here is twofold. First, I've been surprised to hear evangelical leaders quoting Stark's conclusions without apparently realizing that he dismisses the historicity of Acts. Christian leaders should check out their sources more carefully and critically.

Second, the first century really was the best century, no matter how you want to measure it. That suggests we should take another look at simplicity in church life, at personal discipleship as the best way to develop leadership, at mobilization of the whole body for ministry, and other New Testament practices. We should also reject modern entertainment theories and market-driven theories for attracting growth. Trusting to the power of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit might still cause us to see the kind of power they did.

Is The Shack Emergent? Part 2

2008-06-22T12:22:00.003-04:00

In Part 1, I commented on how The Shack removes God's justice and transcendence in a way similar to other books by emergent authors. There were other similarities as well.

Deprecating the Bible’s sufficiency and clarity:

Scriptural content was markedly missing in this book, and in fact, the picture is often at odds with the Bible. Young advances a low view of scripture:

In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. 63,64

Young’s own argument in this book, largely the product of his imagination, is a good argument for making sure our supposed encounters with God are moderated and governed by scripture. His characterization of scripture as limiting and incapable of being interpreted objectively matches other emergent arguments perfectly. Emergent authors use biblical points (like that God speaks to us today) to make points that the Bible never makes (that scripture limits God, or that it can’t be interpreted objectively).

Deprecating all authority:

Emergent authors are consistently repelled by authority of any kind. This theme comes across strong in The Shack.

Mack raised the question of authority within the godhead, and Jesus says “That sounds ghastly!” The Holy Spirit (Sarayu) explains: “We have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship, not a chain of command… What you’re seeing here is relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Heirarchy would make no sense among us. Actually this is your problem, not ours. Humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that people could work or live together without someone being in charge.”

Mack points that that every institution from government to marriage is governed by authority.

“Such a waste!” said Papa… “Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and you end up missing the wonder of relationship that we intended for you.”

Mack points out that people have adapted to it.

Sarayu was quick to reply, “Don’t confuse adaptation for intention, or seduction for reality.” 122, 123

Then “Jesus picked up the conversation. ‘…If you had truly learned to regard each other’s concerns as significant as your own, there would be no need for hierarchy.” 124

“Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In Fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.”

I’m not concerned with the argument about authority within the godhead. But this picture suggests all authority is really unnecessary and unenlightened. Confused and fallen humans have mistakenly opted for authority, but it’s “such a waste.” On the other hand, the God we read of in scripture is very authoritative. God sees authority as a good thing, and no problem for godly people. It is not confused humans, but God himself who establishes authority in the world (Rom. 13:1), the church (Heb. 13:17), and even the family (Eph. 5:22). According to the Bible, relationship is compatible with God’s authority, and should not be put over against it.

Deprecation of Jesus’ exclusivity

According to the Bible, Jesus is God's only provision for forgiveness. Those from other religions are called on to repent from their error and turn to receive Christ. Emergent authors skirt around the issue of universalism with ambiguous language designed to create the possibility of those from other religions being saved, without actually saying that. McLaren is the supreme master at this kind of language, but Young takes his place with similar language.

After Jesus points out that he, himself is not a Christian, he says,

“Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I have followers who were murderers and many who were self-righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christians, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters into my Beloved.” 182

The use of the past tense, “were” makes this comment ambiguous, especially when connected with his denial that he wants to make them Christians. What is the point in this statement? Is it that believers come from these different backgrounds before they were believers, or that they’re fine within their other religions? Hard to say. But it matches the ambiguous statements by McLaren. After explaining that Muslims do what they do because they love God, he says:

I am more and more convinced that Jesus didn’t come merely to start another religion to compete in the marketplace of other religions. If anything, I believe he came to end standard competitive religion (which Paul called "the law") by fulfilling it; I believe he came to open up something beyond religion—a new possibility, a realm, a domain, a territory of the spirit that welcomes everyone but requires everyone (now including members of the Christian religion) to think again and become like little children.’ It is not, like too many religions, a place of fear and exclusion but a place beyond fear and exclusion. It is a place where everyone can find a home in the embrace of God (A Generous Orthodoxy, pp. 266,277).

What does he mean by “beyond exclusion?” Again, it’s hard to say, but it creates the impression that Jesus’ claims are not exclusive. In other places, he has claimed that universalism is completely compatible with good theology.

So, in a word, while The Shack says more things right about God than flat wrong, the overall picture is very wrong. Omitting or deprecating God’s transcendence, justice, authority, and exclusivity leaves us with a caricature of God. This is the God humans would like to have—a big friendly teddy bear who wouldn’t hurt a flea. Bible believers will wonder who this god is.

Is The Shack Emergent?

2008-06-21T16:37:00.006-04:00

At the heart of this book is a portrayal of God’s immanence. Young pictures God the Father, as a friendly “very large black woman” named “Papa,” Jesus as a jean-wearing guy who clumsily drops the bowl of sauce and says, “true that,” and the spirit as a partially transparent Asian girl. All three talk in a friendly, familiar way with Mack. The endearing, sometimes almost mushy love these three exhibit is appealing from the standpoint of our relationship with God, and I think this aspect of God is biblical, even if exaggerated in this story.

Unfortunately, God’s transcendence, justice, authority, and truthfulness are lost in this portrayal.

Lack of transcendence

I was uncomfortable with the notion of this large woman representing the Father who, according to scripture, “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.” This is the same God who warned Moses that nobody can see God and live. Immanence is stressed in the Bible through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but the Father always stands for pure transcendence.

In the Bible, people usually fall on their face when confronted by God. Paul was blind for three days—and these encounters only involved the Son. In The Shack, the relatively irreverent Mac repeatedly throws caustic charges at God the Father:

“How can you say that with all the pain in this world, all the wars and disasters that destroy thousands?”

“But the cost!... It all sounds like the end justifies the means, that to get what you want you will go to any length, even if it costs the lives of billions of people.” 125

One’s credulity is stretched constantly by the plot anyway, but I found my credulity reaching the breaking point with this picture of a man challenging God the Father’s legitimacy and fairness to his face. No sufficient answer is given—Papa just gives smiling assurances that it all works out for love.

Lack of justice

The justice of God completely disappears in Young’s portrayal. And for this reason alone, I’m not surprised the book is popular with emergent thinkers. I think this is a major theme in emergent theology—they have virtually eliminated justice as an attribute of God. One emergent book after another heaps scorn on any portrayal of God as one who promises death to sinners.

This is why so many emergent thinkers have been questioning the penal substitution understanding of the cross of Christ. McLaren and Chalke are completely baffled as to why God would find it necessary to inflict pain on his son. They have both referred to this idea as “cosmic child abuse.” If God wants to forgive sin, they wonder, why doesn’t he just do it? That question makes sense for a human, or a God without the attribute of justice. The emergent god is way too nice to do anything like judging people in hell. An all-loving God unconcerned with righteousness and justice would never do something mean like that.

In The Shack, Mack asks papa whether she is especially fond of all or are there those who she is not especially fond of. She answers,

Nope, I haven’t been able to find any. Guess that’s jes’ the way I is.”

Mack, was interested. “Do you ever get mad at any of them?”

“Sho ‘nuf! What parent doesn’t? There is a lot to be mad about in the mess my kids have made and in the mess they’re in. I don’t like a lot of choices they make, but that anger—especially for me—is an expression of love all the same. I love the ones I am angry with just as much as those I’m not.” 119

Mack is incredulous. Responding to his amazement, papa says,

“I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” 120

In fairness, God doesn’t say sin is okay in this book, but the absence of justice is a glaring flaw. Apparently, we don’t need to be adopted through conversion to become a child of God. All humans are his children, and all entitled to his love as sons and daughters.

Other emergent themes emerge as well. We'll cover these in the next post.

Wicker's Fall of the Evangelical Nation Part 3

2008-05-24T13:27:00.004-04:00

Christine Wicker's book details numerous serious problems facing the evangelical church today, as explained in earlier posts.
Read Part 1
Read Part 2

One of the most ominous facts she refers to comes from Josh McDowell. Wicker quotes McDowell from his book, The Last Christian Generation, saying. "It has been estimated that between 69 and 94 percent of churched youth are leaving the traditional church after high school, and very few are returning. Furthermore, only 33 percent of churched youth have said that the church will pla a part in their lives when they leave home."

This is about as bad as news can get. The church is losing its voice with young people more than any others. Why should we be concerned about that? Look at this chart:

As you can see, most people become Christians during their high school and college years. If the church is losing its voice with these people it means we can expect the anemia of recent years to deepen rapidly. This is perhaps the most critical problem the church faces today--how will we develop effective outreach to students, and how can we form communities that they consider cool, spiritual, and nourishing?

Even though Xenos is know as a leader in this area, we too feel the tension. The reputation of Christians are at an all time low with students, especially in college. You can check out our work with 750 university students here.

Assessing The Fall of the Evangelical Nation Part 2

2008-05-20T21:20:00.009-04:00

In the last post, we saw that Wicker's book raises troubling questions about the continuing viability of the evangelical church in America.

Read Part 1

She's not the only authority arguing the same case. Professor Alvin Reid shows that at least 41% of Americans are hard-core unchurched (have no clear understanding of the gospel, and have had little or no contact with a Bible teaching church), larger than the number of nominal Christians (30%) or active, participating Christians (29%). Alvin Reid, Radically Unchurched: Who they are and how to reach them, (Grand Rapids, Kregel Academic, 2002) 21. He adds that "Of the 350,000 churches in the U. S… less than 1 percent is growing by conversion growth.” 23 and “Over the past decade, membership in Protestant churches dropped 9.5 percent, while the U.S. population grew 11 percent.” 24 He thinks, "Most evangelistic methods used today are ineffective in making disciples.” 24

Wicker points out that while many believe evangelical are the fastest growing faith group in America, the truth is, "Nonbelievers are the fastest-growing faith group in America in numbers and percentage. From 1990 to 2001, which was the last good count, they more than doubled, from 14 million to 29 million. Their proportion of the population grew from 8 percent to more than 14 percent. That means there are more than twice as many people who claim no religion as there are participating evangelicals" when measured by Barna's stricter method. 53

Her claim is confirmed by the American Religious Identification Survey: "In 2001, more than 29.4 million Americans said they had no religion - more than double the number in 1990, and more than Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians all added up."

She shows that the loss of influence is worst among the young. Using Southern Baptist studies, because they keep good records and make them public, she points out that, "In the eighteen-to-thirty-four age group, Southern Baptist baptisms fell 40 percent from one hundred thousand in 1980 to sixty thousand in 2005.”63 Even worse, "The great majority of people being baptized in evangelical churches are already baptized Christians and children." 93

Whatever growth evangelicalism has enjoyed in recent years is often illusory. Wicker cites a case where "Gallup found 42 percent of Americans calling themselves born again or evangelical in 2003. In 2005, the pollster asked three questions to identify born-agains and evangelicals: 1. Born again experience? 3. Witness for Christ? 3. Bible as literal Word of God? The percentage dropped to 19 percent." 211

In a hilarious, but all too true section, Wicker gives one of the main reasons for the decline: "As we've seen, many churches are training for evangelism. They're preaching evangelism, They're pressuring for evangelism. And members are responding. They're praying. They repenting. They're feeling guilty, cowardly, and shamed before Jesus... There's only one thing they're not doing. They're not evangelizing, and nobody, not even Jesus, seems able to make them do it. Only half of all born-again adults do any witnessing at all in a year, and what they do they don't feel good about. Studies show that spreading the Gospel is one of the areas in which Christians ...'have the least interest in self-improvement.'" 135

As I note in my book on discipleship, guilt trips are completely ineffective at motivating evangelism. Groups that reach out eagerly and effectively do so because they think it's fun. Disciples who are properly motivated learn to care about people, learn to make friends with non-Christians, and learn the joy of seeing others come to Christ.

The more churchy a group gets, the fewer non-Christians they see visiting, and the fewer have any interest in returning. Groups that think accommodation (either to western avarice or postmodernism) works fail to see people meet Christ. Groups where people are ashamed of the gospel or the authority of scripture see few come to Christ. The more political a group gets, the fewer converts they see. The more legalistic and narrow groups get, the more they focus on unimportant rules, the fewer converts they see.

Unfortunately these features describe far too many evangelical churches today.

In our last section, we'll look at one of the most fatal points about the evangelical church in America: their loss of impact on students.

Face the Facts: Assessing Wicker's Fall of the Evangelical Nation, Part 1

2008-05-19T11:46:00.008-04:00

As an evangelical leader myself, reading Wicker's book was not an exercise in edification. But it is a cold dose of reality, and although I don't believe all her claims, I think the thrust of what she says must be heard. She begins with her thesis:

Evangelical Christianity in America is dying. The great evangelical movements of today are not a vanguard. They are a remnant, unraveling at every edge. Look at it any way you like: Conversions. Baptisms. Membership. Retention. Participation. Giving. Attendance. Religious literacy. Effect on culture. All are down and dropping. It’s no secret. Even as evangelical forces trumpet their purported political and social victories, insiders are anguishing about their great losses, fearing what the future holds. Nobody knows what to do about it. A lot of people can’t believe it. No wonder. The idea that evangelicals are taking over America is one of the greatest publicity scams in history, a perfect coup accomplished by savvy politicos and religious leaders, who understand media weaknesses and exploit them brilliantly. ix

Could this be true? She lays out studies showing the problem is real, mostly from Christian, evangelical sources--Gordon Conwell, Barna, Josh McDowell, Southern Baptist Mission Board, and from some secular, but neutral sources like Pew and Gallup. She, herself, is not neutral. She is a lapsed Baptist who lost her faith in college, like 90% of evangelical children do, according to McDowell. She tries, but fails to conceal her glee over the situation. But I liked the fact that this was coming from a non-evangelical. Do we dare to read what the world thinks of us?

As a non-believer, Wicker is more interested in the issues raised by the Christian right. She portrays the common perception that evangelical churches are growing in America as sort of a plot, or scam, designed to give the right-wing political people more power at election time. I found this part uninteresting and somewhat implausible.

But while I questioned her interpretations at many points, I did not find her main thesis implausible. Our own studies show the same thing. For instance, "The evidence comes from Southern Baptists’ own studies. Only 7 percent of members who’ve been in a Southern Baptist church five years of less are true converts.” 62 We have done studies that show the same thing, and Baptists are generally better than other evangelical churches. In some of our studies of famous churches, the percent that report they met Christ in that church is as low as 3 percent.

She rolls out numerous studies in an interesting way, interspersed with stories of people from both favorable and hostile perspective. She concludes, "The truth behind all these numbers is that evangelicals are not converting and cannot convert non-Christian Americans, especially native-born white people, in significant numbers." 64 I believe that is as true as any statement in the book.

In a larger view she says, "A small and declining group of people has been portrayed as tremendously powerful and growing so rapidly that they might take over the country—when in fact that number of converts among this group is down and dropping. They are rarely able to convert and , middle-class American. Their share of the population is not 25 percent, but at most 7 percent of the country and falling. All these numbers come from the churches themselves." 67

What about the reports that 30 or even 40% of Americans are evangelicals? She de-bunks that myth using work again from evangelical sources, including Barna who made that figure popular. His real test for actual believers of a simple list of 9 basic truths shows that the real number of those who believe the Bible at a level that could be considered evangelical is only 7% of the population. Even this crew is suspect. The rest of the so-called 'born-again' Christians in America don't even know what it means. Wicker observes, "The other larger group [the rest of the 40%] comprised evangelicals who were born again but didn’t accept the great majority of the most basic religious tenets that evangelicals are “supposed” to live by. 86 I've known this for years. There's no way most of the people Barna refers to as born-again are true Christians.

One of the biggest questions in my mind as a read this book, just released on April 29, 2008, is whether the evangelical church will be willing to read it. I don't think so. I predict this book, which should be read by all evangelicals, is destined for the remainder table. Evangelicals have consistently shown no willingness to read anything that suggests their current path might be wrong.

Next: We'll drill down into some of Wicker's data for the facts.

My Reaction to Francis Collins' Language of God Part 6

2008-05-10T16:42:00.004-04:00

Collins' theory of "Biologos"

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Collins' version of theistic evolution should be called deistic evolution. He only allows God a role at the very beginning, setting up the machine at the time of the big bang. Even the arrival of abstract intelligence, morality, and the desire for God were apparently natural developments.19 God's role is limited to foreknowing that evolution would take this path.20 His position is even more deistic than Darwin's own position, because Darwin said: "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived upon this earth have descended from one primordial form into which life was first breathed by the Creator."21 Collins won't even allow for God launching the first living cells.

Collins' analysis of why people resist this deistic theory of origins centers on two specious reasons—1) that people don't like theism associated with evolution, and 2) that they prefer controversy to harmony. I can't think of anyone who resists deism for these reasons.

The real reason Christians resist deism is biblical authority and sound exegesis. Here, Collins reveals his method again, in a way consistent with his earlier chapters: Genesis 1 and 2 are figurative. Adam and Eve were not the only humans, because of Cain's wife. Therefore they are probably just a representative story of how people don't obey God. C.S. Lewis and the Pope agree that the passages should not be taken literally or historically. The lyrical character puts them in the same category as Job and Jonah, which do not carry a "historical ring."22

As noted earlier, these verdicts fly in the face of Jesus' clear teaching that "God said" the things recorded in Gen 2 to Adam. Jesus likened his resurrection to Jonah's expulsion by the fish. According to this reasoning, if the Jonah story was mythical, Jesus' resurrection could be mythical also. Paul teaches that just as sin entered through one man, justification entered through one man. Again, if Adam's fall was mythical, wouldn't this mean that Jesus' death and resurrection could be the same? How did the fallen nature pass to other humans? Clearly the Adam and Eve story is impossible if humans evolved in a transitional community of organisms probably comprising thousands of members, as Collins assumes. I hope we all see that viewing humans as the product of evolution alone means the rejection of a literal Adam and Eve. It also offers no adequate explanation for a spiritual nature that would even survive death.

Collins' view of scripture is completely unacceptable.

On page 83, Collins gives us two choices where Genesis interpretation is concerned: hyper-literal young earth hermeneutics, and non-historical poetic license. His coverage in this section demonstrates no understanding of other interpretive positions. Throughout this section, he shows little depth of understanding either of the interpretive issues in Genesis or of the theological issues raised by his low view of scripture.

Collins stands close enough to biblical faith to be very appealing, especially because of his preeminence in the scientific community. But while learning from his advanced scholarship in genetics, people could also easily buy into his poorly informed views on scripture.

For us, the determining limits to which theories may be accepted should be biblical exegesis. I believe we have no reason to declare which theory or combination is the correct one, only which theories are possible within a biblical framework.

19 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 201. Although he allows that these defy explanation through evolution, he still resists attributing them to God, and maintains that no intervention by God was necessary. He reaffirms this when he describes moral law and desire to know God as gradual, natural developments that could have happened in reptiles if things had gone differently.

20. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 205, 207

21. Cited in Gleason Archer, Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 195.

22. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 209.

My Reaction to Collins' Language of God Part 5

2008-05-05T01:13:00.004-04:00

Read earlier comments in
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Collins on Intelligent Design

Collins' assumption that scientists would never ignore or marginalize a new view, just because it's based on theistic assumptions seems quite naïve to me. Why would scientists be any different than other humans? While they may like formulating new theories, adopting a position that would lead to their own marginalization is not likely.

Collins disqualifies ID as science because "A viable scientific theory predicts other findings and suggests approaches for further experimental verification." But "ID's proposal of the intervention of supernatural forces to account for complex multi-component biological entities is a scientific dead end. Outside of the development of a time machine, verification of the ID theory seems profoundly unlikely."13 I think this criticism fails for more than one reason.

First, macroevolution (as I have defined it above) suffers the same criticism as ID. It prescribes no future approach for experimental verification. Experimental verification of natural selection or of genetic mutation is not the same as verification for macroevolution. Faith in macroevolution rests entirely on interpretation of existing data and has never been validated experimentally, or observed.

Second, while we would have to go back in a time machine to verify ID, we would also need one to validate macroevolution. Collins fails to see that believing in a process that has immense gaps in the fossil record, and no explanation for how it began in the first place is no better than believing in a far more plausible explanation, such as intervention by a designer.

I thought his call for ID to give a mechanism for how the intelligence gets into the design was unrealistic.14 This would be nothing but speculation at best. Any number of possibilities could be suggested, but these would probably only be used to ridicule the position. ID is primarily a critique of a pure Darwinian explanation for nature. Collins seems to imply that ID is in the same category as young earthers, but most are in fact Darwinists within limits. The material I have seen is arguing that Darwin's theory is inadequate to explain all transitions. Most do not deny Darwinian principles across the board.

His arguments that current design in humans is imperfect and flawed, thus making it unlikely they come from God, are very familiar arguments found in enlightenment writings – Darwin, Hume, and others advanced these same arguments, and they have been answered satisfactorily.15 I was surprised to see a theist using these well-known atheistic arguments.

I thought his rejection of Behe's flagellum argument was unconvincing and rhetorically loaded. He throws in qualifiers like "presumably" such and so could have happened, and admits "we are far from filling in the whole picture (if we ever can)," but on these bases, he concludes "Recent research has fundamentally undercut this [ID] position."16 The research he mentions did nothing more than suggest a highly speculative possibility without observable backing [that flagella could have been borrowed toxin injectors somehow converted to a completely different function]. How does this fundamentally undercut anything? I thought it highly questionable that an organelle used to inject toxin into other bacteria would spontaneously begin to spin as a means of motility, and thereafter be reproduced for that purpose. I'm sure Behe et al. would point out that this transition would have to happen for all parts of the flagellum in a very short time in order to bestow any enhanced survivability. I can't believe Collins thinks the matter is closed based on this speculation.

I have never felt that the flagellum and related arguments were the most persuasive part of ID (their work on inorganic evolution is far more convincing, since the mechanisms of mutation and selection are not available as an explanation). But I did not feel that mere resemblance to amino acid sequences in a somewhat similar organelle that had a completely different function could be called "fundamentally undercutting" the flagellum argument.

He also characterizes irreducible complexity as the foundation for ID, and that is inaccurate. That is only one argument use by the group, and in my mind, it is one of the least convincing. The recent discovery that bacteria and viruses can adopt and assimilate loose strands of inter-cellular DNA into their own DNA (not mentioned by Collins) could raise problems for this theory as well.17

He completely fails to deal with their much more substantial work in inorganic evolution. This is a critical shortcoming in his critique. He also fails to deal with Dembski's analysis of what constitutes evidence of design in nature.

Collins includes a theological critique centering again on the 'God of the gaps' complaint dealt with earlier, and a specious claim that ID pictures an incompetent God who needs to intervene periodically to "correct" his shortcomings in previous creation. Neither of these was convincing.
The reasons for progressive creation would not need to be correcting errors or deficiencies. Anyone who has added to his garden during successive years understands why the creative work done last year may be supplemented without any suggestion that the previous work was mistaken. The pleasure of creating is reason enough for a creative being to act. For all we know, progressive acts of creation may have been appropriate because conditions were developing on the planet during long intervals that made further advances possible. There could be other reasons. This critique is an interpretation loaded with negative assumptions not based on any evidence. It is also possible that natural selection and mutation are incapable of developing beyond certain inherent limits.

Collins is completely negative about ID. He predicts it is a ship headed for the bottom of the ocean.18 I thought he gave no adequate basis for this caustic assessment. Young people in our church have supplied me with evidence that in recent months, weblogs and other groups discussing science and Christianity have suddenly shifted from favoring ID to declaring it now "disproven," that "it sucks," and "is stupid." I think Collins' very popular book is having a dramatic but unwarranted impact.

Next time: Collins' "Biologos" theory

13. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 187.

14. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 187, 188,

15. Gleason Archer, Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974) on Genesis.

16. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 192.

17. Laurie Garrett, The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases In a World Out of Balance, (New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994).

18. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 195.

My Reaction to Collins' Languag of God Part 4

2008-05-04T00:15:00.004-04:00

Collins' work on biblical exegesis

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3

Collins says, "The concern about not accepting liberal interpretations of biblical texts is understandable."8 But he also says, "…parts of the Bible, such as the first few chapters of Genesis, the book of Job, the Song of Solomon, and the Psalms, have a more lyrical and allegorical flavor, and do not seem to carry the marks of pure historical narrative."9 He adds, "to most other interpreters throughout history, until Darwin put believers on the defensive, the first chapters of Genesis had much more the feel of a morality play than an eyewitness report on the evening news."10 His view here only reflects Roman Catholic allegorizing during the medieval period, which was not only applied to these passages but to most historical narrative in the Bible. Allegorical hermeneutics were rejected well before Darwin by evangelical interpreters, and for reasons different than that assumed by Collins.11

These statements clearly signal that Collins has a view of scripture deemed unacceptable to the vast majority of evangelical scholarship and contrary to our own statement of faith. During the 1980's hundreds of the top scholars in the evangelical world came together to clarify what evangelical views on biblical authority should entail. They developed the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics," which is the clearest formulation of the evangelical view in this area. Notice these articales that are violated by Collins' statements (key phrases that I think are denied are in bold):

Article VI.

WE AFFIRM that the Bible expresses God's truth in propositional statements, and we declare that biblical truth is both objective and absolute. We further affirm that a statement is true if it represents matters as they actually are, but is an error if it misrepresents the facts. (Collins thinks they are still true even though they make claims that were wrong.)

Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of biblical study.

WE DENY that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual. (The early chapters of Genesis present themselves as factual, but Collins says they are symbolic.)

Article XV.

WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support. (such as allegory, which Collins likes.)

Article XX.

WE AFFIRM that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.

WE DENY that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.

Article XXII.

WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.

WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
Also note these statements from the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:"
(Collins directly rejected this position.)
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
(Collins directly rejected this position.)

Article XII.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

[Their point here is that we begin with exegesis and determine the limits allowed. THEN we go to science as it stands today to see what is more or less likely within those limits. The wrong approach would be to reach conclusions via science, and then make scripture fit that conclusion—which is exactly the approach Collins takes when he dismisses Gen 1-11 as history. – Dennis]

Article XVI.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.
(Collins directly rejected this position.)

Article XVIII.

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads or relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.
(Collins did exactly this in his argument.)

I think Collins' approach to scripture violates all of these statements, and is completely unacceptable for Bible believers. Such a view could prove a stumbling block to the weak and unlearned.

Jesus and Paul affirmed that the early chapters of Genesis were historical and factual. Remember that our information on Adam and Eve, and the fall of the human race are contained in these "allegorical" and "morality play" chapters. This is why evangelicals believe these chapters are historical, not a defensive reaction to Darwin.

Since Collins' method emanates from a base that is not constrained by a high view of scripture, his method is faulty. Therefore, we must be very careful about accepting his views based on that method.

Contrast his view of scripture with his view of science:

"Science is progressive and self-correcting: no significantly erroneous conclusions or false hypotheses can be sustained for long, as newer observations will ultimately knock down incorrect constructs."12

I think Collins' faith in science is extreme and unwarranted. Critics of scientism like Kuhn have demonstrated multiple cases where exactly what Collins thinks could never happen has happened (see his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Collins' faith in science contrasts strongly with his lack of confidence in scripture, and calls further in to question his underlying assumptions and methods.

Next time: Collins on Intelligent Design

8. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 175.

9. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 175.

10. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 175.

11. See this author and Gary DeLashmutt's explanation in "Hermeneutical Systems."

12. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 58.

My Reaction to Francis Collins' Language or God Part 3

2008-04-29T01:16:00.003-04:00

We have considered Francis Collins' views on the 'God of the gaps' argument and his views on the fossil record in
Part 1
Part 2
Now we consider his work on:

Interpreting molecular similarities

Collins shows compelling evidence for similarity between human and mouse DNA, even in non-functional sections. His conclusion is that such similarity denotes common ancestry. But while similarity could denote a common ancestor, it could also denote a common maker. Is it reasonable to assume that God would start from scratch every time he introduced a new order of organisms (assuming this happened)? Or would he begin with existing forms, and alter them in meaningful ways to produce the new order? I don't know how we could answer these questions. Clearly, if the notion that God periodically introduced new forms is true, the evidence suggests that he used existing forms as templates from which to build the new forms. This could explain the data just as well as evolution.

As an analogy, consider the way programmers produce a new computer program. They normally do not begin from scratch, but use helpful strings of code from previous programs they have written for various functions. Likewise, a Bible teacher will commonly include illustrations and arguments he has used in earlier teachings when constructing a new one. These similarities don't imply that the new program or teaching sprang from the former, but that the creator of both used existing material combined with new material to produce the new creations.

Collins admits that these similarities are only found "over substantial stretches" and "in some instances."6 He also concedes that, "one might argue that the order of genes is critical in order for their function to occur properly, and therefore a designer might have maintained that order in multiple acts of special creation."7 But he feels that, "there is no evidence from current understanding of molecular biology that this restriction would need to apply over such substantial chromosomal distances." In other words, the similarity of sequence is longer than necessary for the functions involved. But this observation doesn't rule out the use of even relatively long similar chains by a designer. It only shows that such borrowing would not be necessary as far as we know.

He concludes: "this kind of recent genome data thus presents and overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo." I think this conclusion is warranted. But it may be a bit of a straw-man as well. Only extreme creationists continue to hold that all species were specially created. I fail to see why believers would argue this extreme position. However, the genome data do not present an overwhelming challenge to the view that God engaged in multiple creative acts at various points, combined with evolution.

Next time: Collins' work on biblical exegesis.

6. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 134.

7. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 134, 135.

My Reaction to Collins' Language of God, Part 2

2008-04-26T17:43:00.003-04:00

Read Part 1
In part 1, I argued that Francis Collins' warnings against any "God of the gaps" argument are overdone. If God has ever acted in supernatural ways, there would be gaps. Also, secular science has it's own imaginary phenomena to explain gaps. This time we examine his work on the fossil record.

Macroevolution and the fossil record

Collins' rejection of the distinction between macro and microevolution (p. 132) is based on an overly narrow definition of microevolution. I agree that Christians often err here, by claiming that no new species have appeared through evolution. The evidence is good that many species are the result of evolution. I have always held that in the expression, "after its own kind," (Gen. 1) the word 'kind' is not defined. It could mean species, genus, family, or even phyla or something larger. I also agree with Collins that the idea of macroevolution has no clear definition and is therefore a somewhat vague concept. But I think it is still useful for declaring that evolution has some limits in what it can explain. "Reproducing after its own kind" has to mean something. The rules of exegesis say you can't just ignore language that doesn't fit your theory. If the amoeba gave rise to humans, then what does "reproducing after its own kind" mean? The phrase seems to be saying there were limits within which organisms reproduce. If not this, what does it mean?

Fossils

Collins never adequately addresses the larger question of jumps in the fossil record. Even the discovery of some possible transitional forms (where formerly there were none) cannot be reasonably extrapolated to mean that all missing transitions will eventually be found, or that they once existed, but were never preserved in the fossil record. This is a faith position without observable backing. It fills the gaps with imagined fossils that have never actually been seen. It also fails to speak to the stability of species in the fossil record, where most species appear relatively suddenly, stay very stable throughout their history (except for minor changes like size) and then often disappear. This picture does not fit Darwinian assumptions. Think of the famous case of the horse. The changes seen in the fossil record are basically a change in size, which is qualitatively different than the kind of changes one would need to see in order to demonstrate macro-evolution.

Collins' proposition (that transitions may have occurred during periods when fossils were not deposited) means that such suspensions in fossil deposition would have to happen worldwide even in very different sedimentary strata, deposited in different ways. For instance, some are deposited by oceans, some by rivers, and some fossils come from animals trapped in tar pits or amber, to name a few. These would all have to suspend fossil making for many millions of years at the same time in order to explain why the discontinuous layers we have are really continuous and relatively constant in rate of change, as predicted by Darwin. Why would this happen? I think this is a huge leap of faith, and even atheist paleontologists like Gould use this same data to back up the need for punctuated equilibrium (which is leap of faith in itself).

The last research I did on this about three years ago indicated that only a handful of debatable links have been found, and that thousands of gaps remain as striking as ever. Robert Carroll observes recently in Nature, "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.) Even in cases where possible transition fossils have been discovered, they are usually far distant from either the parent line, or the line they are supposed to explain, and authorities disagree on whether many of them are really transitional forms at all.

His efforts to argue that fossils are rare and the record extremely fragmentary is unconvincing. At every geological period, millions and even billions of fossils survive. The problem (not acknowledged or discussed by Collins, except in the case of the Cambrian explosion) is that strata containing abundant fossil remains from entire new orders lie immediately adjacent to strata containing none of these organisms or anything similar. This widespread phenomenon remains a major problem for Darwinian theorists. Collins' general statements about the difficulty of making fossils did nothing to answer this problem. Of course only a minority of organisms are ever preserved in fossil form. But as anyone who has studied fossils knows, this minority still usually numbers in the millions for most categories.

I believe his claim that the former view (that there were huge gaps all over the place) has now been refuted, is wrong. Authorities writing recently still argue that most significant gaps remain. The sudden appearance of new phyla, genera, and families is remarkable today as it has been. The only place I have seen such sweeping claims that the problems with fossils are not in the past is on atheist websites with low credibility.

Collins does not demonstrate careful study of the fossil record (geology and paleontology are not his area of expertise), and this is a serious weakness in his argument. Fossils remain the only truly objective, empirical data we have for what actually happened. Mathematical extrapolations from genetics does not stand, in my view, at the same level of credibility as the actual history as seen in the fossil record.

I admit that an explanation could conceivably be found one day for the discontinuities in the fossil record. But I believe the evidence today still conforms to a picture of periodic dramatic changes in plant and animal populations, and these are used to date sedimentary strata, because other strata are missing these forms. This picture is not easily explained by pure natural selection, and could indeed represent creative episodes where God intervened.

Read Part 1

Next time: Collins' work on interpreting DNA similarities and his biblical exegesis.

My Reaction to The Language of God by Francis Collins Part 1

2008-04-16T01:12:00.003-04:00

The Language of God is an interesting read from one of the world's most prestigious scientists. He recounts his own conversion from agnosticism to theism, and goes on to examine how a personal creator accords with the findings of science. This book could be very helpful to non-believers when questioning their own agnosticism or atheism. I found it less useful as a guide to a Christian view of origins.

Collins' Objections to 'God of the Gaps' Arguments

Collins says, "Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps."1 This is an oft-repeated point in other's work, and has a lot of history behind it. However, there are gaps which should be filled in our understanding by God. Every time a miracle happens, we have something we don't understand. And God is the explanation. Every act of God in history is a gap that, properly understood, is filled with God. While it's easy to err and attribute to God's intervention things that have natural causes, this only means we should be careful. It does not mean that gaps in scientific knowledge may indeed be answered best by divine intervention.

Collins is eager to avoid giving God as the reason unexplainable things in natural history. But what is the difference between seeing God in the unbridgeable gap between simple organic compounds and living cells on one hand (which Collins resists), and between the big bang and whatever happened beforehand on the other (which Collins accepts)? Using a God of the gaps argument seems to be okay in some situations, but the rules are unclear.
Referring to inorganic evolution and why it would be unwise to assume God is responsible, he says,

There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge."2

He seems to believe that science will soon explain inorganic evolution also, so we shouldn't attribute it to God. I thought this position was way too cautious.

Discussing the Cambrian explosion, he says,

While attempts have been made by certain theists to argue that the Cambrian explosion is evidence of the intervention of some supernatural force, a careful examination of the facts does not seem to warrant this. This is another "God of the gaps" argument, and once again believers would be unwise to hang their faith upon such a hypothesis."3

I see no argument or evidence given here to back this rejection of divine intervention at or around the Cambrian explosion. Whether the theistic position is a 'gaps argument' begs the question and is ad hominem. Ad hominem means "against the man" where instead of refuting one's evidence, you point out he is making a similar argument to a discredited other (like Hitler), or in this case, earlier mistaken Christians. It's an invalid form of argument, because the fact that someone else messed up when using a similar argument means nothing about whether the present case is messed up.

The fact is that our observable data show huge discontinuities in the fossil record appearing in short time spans. Of course we can speculate about possible explanations that would still allow for the slow transitions required by Darwinian Theory, but such speculations have no backing in observable data, and cannot be considered science. This is particularly hard to accept when layers of sediment (like limestone) from the same ocean show change happening between one layer and another. Why would the ocean stop depositing sediment and then start again? In cases where the ocean dried up for a period and re-filled (which has happened numerous times with shallow inland seas) you can see clear signs that this is what happened.

The only argument I could see by Collins was that "The so-called Cambrian explosion might, for example, reflect a change in conditions that allowed fossilization of a large number of species that had actually been in existence for millions of years,"4 How is this explanation for the gap any different or any better than the hypothesis that God intervened at this point in history? I agree with him that we cannot be dogmatic on such ancient issues. I also agree that people shouldn't "hang their faith" on the assumption that God intervened here. But the theistic hypothesis seems far more plausible to me than some worldwide change in fossil formation capability. An appeal to some change in the way fossils form, which formerly allowed microscopic fossils, but afterward allowed larger, complex fossils seems rather desperate to me. Normally larger organisms form fossils most easily. He gives no clear description of how this change would happen, or why.

Atheists argue that people have erroneously used the 'God of the gaps' argument before, and therefore we should never use it again. Similarly, some theologians argue that people have erroneously claimed that the end times are at hand based on so-called 'signs,' so we should never again argue that case. Both of these are fallacious arguments.

Just because God was wrongly blamed for being the cause of certain gaps in understanding (like what causes disease) doesn't mean there are no gaps that should be attributed to God. This would lead to a completely naturalistic worldview. Miracles would be impossible. All apparent interventions by God would have to be left in abeyance in the belief that someday science will explain it.

Collins doesn't deny the reality of miracles, and in fact says he believes in them. But his method makes it necessary to prove something is a miracle before believing in it. Many miracles can't be proven, but are real. I'm not commenting on Collins' beliefs here, I'm commenting on his methodology.

Likewise, just because people argued falsely that the end times were at hand based on signs that were misinterpreted doesn't mean that the end times won't be signaled by signs correctly interpreted, as Jesus clearly teaches in the parable of the fig tree (Mat. 24:32, 33). Such ad hominem arguments would be analogous to saying that since evolution was the basis for National Socialism and communism; we should never appeal to evolution for any explanations.
In a word, the fact that people have used a line of reasoning poorly in the past doesn't mean the line of reasoning is discredited—only their improper use of it. Collins himself has suggested at least one gap that should be attributed to God (the big bang), and grudgingly admits that another (inorganic evolution) could be explained by God. As biblical theists, we believe there are many gaps that should be explained by God's action in history.

Next time: Collins on the fossil record.

1 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, (New York: Free Press, 2006), 93.
2 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 93.
3 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 95.
4 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 94, 95.

Implications of Divine Election of Leaders

2008-04-10T15:59:00.002-04:00

Last time, I argued that God chooses spiritual leaders. If we accept that premise, what are the implications for ministry today?

Implications

The implications of this perspective on leadership are profound. If we conclude that God chooses leaders, our goal becomes cooperatiaon with the choice of God in assuring that only divinely appointed leaders are recognized. Therefore:

We should avoid appointing someone as a leader on any basis other than our belief that God has chosen him or her for that role. This rules out leadership based on seniority, on level of scholarship, degrees earned, prestige in the community, personal friendship, etc.

We should exercise caution when giving, or providing ministry to a young Christian. We should provide opportunity to build ministry, but we would not want to install a young worker into a well-developed ministry he or she did not actually build. Otherwise, we might simulate from the human side what God should provide from his side. The result could be that a person appears to be chosen by God, when in fact we have installed the person in their position artificially. Installing a person into a developed ministry will often result in the "turtle on a fence post" syndrome (i.e. the turtle didn't put himself there, someone else placed him there). We may harm both the church and the individual when we interfere with God's election in this way. It makes more sense to offer young workers opportunities to follow up new people and form discipleship relationships than to offer them ready-made leadership roles like existing cell groups or home groups. An exception to this would be cases where a person has proven leadership in one venue, and we call on them to move to a new ministry. This was apparently what Barnabas did when he summoned Paul from Tarsus to Antioch.

We should be very reluctant to remove ministry from a young Christian worker. Such removal could result in a subsequent failure to recognize God's choice of the person for leadership because humans have disrupted his or her ministry every time it begins to flourish. There are important exceptions to this rule of thumb warranted in Scripture. The main exception would be the case where the young worker has disqualified him or herself by recent, serious, and objective sin. Scripture teaches the importance of moral character for Christian workers in passages like the requirements for deacons, (which, if violated could result in disqualification). Although young workers are not deacons, the principle would still apply to some extent, that anyone who serves the Lord needs to live up to minimal standards of Christian character. The the Bible provides examples of leaders removed from leadership due to sin or false teaching (1 Tim:1:20; 3 John 9,10). But these passages indicate that such removal should involve serious sin, not minor slip-ups. We would assume the same thing with young workers--they should not be removed from ministry because of minor slip-ups. All the passages warning against hypocrisy also imply that those trying to lead others, should be doing what they preach to a large extent. (Luke 12:1) "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."

Whether someone is removed from leadership for disciplinary reasons or removes himself for other reasons, this could be an indication that God has not elected the person for leadership at this time. For this reason, we would not restore one who has been removed from leadership back to leadership unless the signs of divine election are again evident. This usually means the person has returned to the beginning stages of ministry and re-built their following. An exception to this might be situations where leaders have temporarily stepped down due to situations judged to be either outside their control, or unimportant.

Only leaders whose ministry is blessed by God are considered for advancement to higher levels of ministry. If we err in putting in leaders whom God has not chosen for that role, we do better to make such errors at lower levels of leadership rather than higher levels.

The notion that leaders are chosen by God strongly implies favoring indigenous leadership to imported leadership. Leaders imported from another group cannot be realistically affirmed by the local members and leaders, unless they know those in the former location relatively well. Such imported leaders usually have to depend on external credentials or hearsay for their legitimacy. Although we see the example of Barnabas bringing Paul in from Tarsus to Antioch, Barnabas had personal knowledge of Paul and his ability. Paul had also planted more than one church in Syria and Cilicia before Barnabas came for him. (Acts. 15:36,41)

Even with these principles, the business of determining God's calling remains subjective. We are often reduced to guesswork when naming leaders, because there are so many variables involved. We usually are faced with compromise in at least some areas with every leader we recognize. Pray often that God will clearly indicate his choices for leadership.

What Makes Someone a Christian Leader

2008-04-06T01:16:00.002-04:00

In the New Testament God used human leaders to bring blessing and feeding to the church. From the day of Pentecost, the apostles acted as de facto leaders. They preached, taught, (Acts 2:42) and ruled on issues that came up for debate (Acts 6:1,2). They were able to delegate leadership to others (Acts 6:3,4).

After the period of the Jerusalem church, attention shifts to Paul's missionary journeys. Paul, too, was an apostle, and an obvious leader. He served in Antioch with a group of men who were said to be "prophets and teachers." (Acts 13:1) These were probably the elders in Antioch, though never says that. It does record that "they" [probably the same men] laid hands on Paul and Barnabas and sent them off on the first journey." The reason they chose Paul and Barnabas was divine election (see below). On that first journey we see them appointing elders in the new churches they planted. (Acts 14:23) The fasting and prayer that preceded these appointments suggests they were seeking God's choice for leaders. These appointments ware made during their return trip through these cities, indicating that some time had passed (probably only weeks) since their original visit.

During the second journey, Paul added Timothy to his band, likely leading to Timothy's eventual recognition as an apostle. Although this is never actually stated, Timothy acts in the role of an apostle in appointing elders and overseeing elders according to 1 Timothy. (Ch. 3; 5:17ff) The only criteria given in Acts for why Paul chose Timothy is that "The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him." (Acts 16:2) However, in 2 Tim. 1:6 Paul refers to bestowing gifts on Timothy by the laying on of his own hands (most likely the gift of apostleship). This is also referred to in 1 Tim. 4:14 where Paul reminds him of his gift, "which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." Thus, if a prophetic utterance was the occasion of Timothy's choosing, we again have a case of divine election.

Both Timothy and Titus are given the job of appointing elders. Of interest is the fact that Paul has left them behind to do this work, implying that it was not possible to select elders when he was there. This suggests that they wanted to see these men actually living out leadership roles before making the choice to recognize them as elders. Likewise, Paul cautions Timothy about deacons: "They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons." (1 Tim. 3:10)

Overarching these observations about leadership in the early church, we see evidence of divine election in the selection of leaders. This should be clear for the following reasons.

	The Apostles were chosen by Christ. The correct context of John 15:16 (You did not chose me, but I chose you) is not unconditional election or irresistible grace, but election to the role of apostle. Likewise, God's choice is evident in the story of Paul's conversion (where God refers to his future ministry) and in the story of the Spirit speaking to the leaders at Antioch in Acts 13 (saying, "Set apart for me Paul and Barnabas..."). Timothy was apparently named an apostle by a prophetic message from God. (1 Tim. 4:14) We find, therefore, that when it comes to the role of leadership in the New Testament, the key is whether or not God has chosen the person.
	Paul comments on his own credentials for leadership in the book of 2 Corinthians 3:1-3: "Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts..." Here, Paul contrasts human credentials (letters of commendation) to his own credentials, which are nothing less than the marks of divine election. Instead of humans writing his letter, he says the Spirit of God wrote it on human hearts.
	Notice Paul's reference in 2 Cor. 10:12 to "the field God has assigned to us." God apparently assigns fields of ministry, and Paul's proof that he was assigned the field in question is that he had done the work there, as the context makes clear.
	According to Rom. 12:8, there is a gift of leadership. Likewise, Eph. 4:11,12 says, "It was he [God] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up." This is in harmony with the notion that God "has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be." (1 Cor. 12:18) In other words, these passages seem to say that God chooses who should lead his church. We believe leaders can serve even without a gift of leadership, although we should seek out and include those with such a gift if they have good character.
	We see in the waiting period between the planting of churches and the selection of elders an apparent effort to discern who God wants to serve as leaders. This is also the best explanation for why deacons are tested before they are ordained. The existing leadership seems to assume that God has certain people whom he wants to lead, and their mission is to discern who those people are. Paul warns Timothy not to be too hasty to lay on hands [i.e. to chose leaders 1 Tim. 5:22 context].
	Election was evident with Old Testament leaders as well. God often made a personal appearance to choose leaders, as with Abraham and Moses. To David God says, "I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be leader over My people Israel." (1Chron. 17:7) Indeed, all the legitimate kings of Israel were anointed by prophets as chosen of God.
	Mature Christian character is a prerequisite for leadership in all cases. Even highly gifted leaders who lack the needed character qualities may not be named as leaders. This is implied in the requirements for elders and deacons, which focus on character qualities.

We conclude that God, not humans, makes a person a spiritual leader. As existing church leaders, our mission is not to create leaders out of non-leaders by naming them or ordaining them. On the contrary, our mission is to discern whom God has chosen to be a leader, and to ratify, or recognize that choice. In naming leaders we are indicating that we believe God has shown this person is already chosen to be a leader because he or she is already doing the work of a leader and has the character of a leader.

Read about raising up leadership in the church in Organic Disciplemaking.

What are the implications if God chooses leaders?

Human Leaders Part 2

2008-04-01T23:15:00.003-04:00

In Who Needs Human Leaders Part 1 I argued for a balanced view of human and divine contributions to ministry. Consider some of the implications that flow from this understanding of leadership:

It would be pointless to formulate plans, exert effort, take risks, or spend money on a ministry project that is not empowered by God. Any such project is doomed to fail spiritually, no matter how much outward "fruit" it appears to bear.
Humans can do tasks, including attracting a following, without any help from God. However, for those of us with a biblical perspective, such a following would be not only unimportant, but actually dangerous to our own spiritual lives and the health of the church. Those who understand the divine component in ministry don’t want any more following than what God has in mind for them.
Leaders who understand God’s part in leadership become more watchful, and less forceful. They realize the futility of sociologically-based change (changing because of group pressure or manipulation) and instead realize that the key to successful ministry is finding out what God is doing. Then the leader can cooperate with God’s direction and often maximize results.
Leaders who see their roles as God does are less shattered by failure and less elated by success. Years of serving God as leaders teach them that what appears a great success is often not as great as people think, and what seems like failure may not be as bad as supposed. In the face of failure, God always seems to find a way through eventually. At the same time, nothing is ever as easy as we thought it would be. The realization that ultimate responsibility for the kingdom lies with the king leads to stability and consistency in leadership.
The nightmare of presiding over a huge, carnally motivated ministry may haunt spiritually-minded leaders, while leading a small flock in the true power of the Spirit seems increasingly appealing. Of course, a spiritual leader will go where God calls him or her, whether to large or small flocks.
While techniques and scholarship can be increasingly mastered in our lives, discerning the hand of God in leadership never gets all that easy. As a result, long-time leaders develop an increasingly careful and circumspective approach when deciding on direction, while carnally motivated leaders tend to become "know-it-alls." Of course, all good leaders know how to move strongly and decisively once God’s direction has been discerned.
Biblical leaders are constantly scanning the people in their sphere of influence, watching for signs that God is moving someone ahead. They know the divine election plays key a role in leadership development. God’s gifting of believers is an indication of his plan for them in the body, according to 1 Cor. 12. Likewise, people often have underlying personal problems that are secret to all but God. These issues often come out only after a person is in leadership and may cause widespread damage. In retrospect, we sometimes realize the signs were there all along. Godly leaders see that the key to leadership replication involves a combination of faithful feeding of the flock on the one hand, while trying to discern who God is designating as his chosen leaders for the future.

Next time: What makes someone a spiritual leader?

Who Needs Human Leaders?

2008-03-30T22:35:00.004-04:00

After recently noting the dread of human leadership evident in Pagan Christianity, I thought it would be good to review some points about the relationship between divine empowerment and leadership on one hand, and human leadership on the other.

The key to success in ministry, as God defines success, is getting in line with what God wants to do, or is doing. The biblical concept of ministry is serving God or other people in a way that furthers God’s will or purpose. Further, true ministry must be empowered and directed by God. God is clear that "it is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing." (John 6:63) He warns in the Old Testament that, "Unless the Lord builds the house, they do labor in vain that build it." (Psalms 127:1) Paul said the apostles were those who "glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh." (Phil. 3:3) These passages and many others all suggest the same thing: If God’s power moves through us in ministry, spiritual fruit will be borne. If his power is not animating our ministry, nothing we do will help the situation.

Over against the biblical teaching about the centrality of God in ministry, the Bible teaches that human agency is also significant. In each case where a church is planted in the book of Acts, one or more humans went to that city and were used by God to plant it. Paul teaches that God presents members of the Body of Christ with gifts, ministries, and effects for his glory, and for the common good. (1 Cor. 12:4-7) Paul goes so far as to say that people cannot believe unless they hear, and they can’t hear unless someone preaches. (Rom. 10:14) He also says God has "committed to us the message of reconciliation." (2Cor. 5:19)

In other words, God wants to work his will through the agency of cooperating Christians servants who understand his ways and actively move out to become "fellow workers with God." (1 Cor. 3:7) The degree to which God has delegated the task of reaching the world to humans is remarkable. One important function that God expects many Christians to carry out for him is leadership. From one end of the Bible to the other, God worked through human leaders. Most of the great heroes of faith from Abraham to Moses to David to Paul were leaders. In the New Testament the role of human leader is expanded further. No longer is leadership reserved for kings or priests. In the Body of Christ, the apostles regularly appointed leadership in every locality from common people.

Jesus' observation that "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few," and his call to "Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field," both imply that God's intentions on earth may be thwarted by a shortage of qualified leaders. (Mat. 9:37,38) In order for home churches to replicate themselves, leaders must be raised up. Therefore, for those of us who are concerned about following God and seeing his will done on earth, the matter of finding and establishing human leadership is urgent.

Obviously, if human leadership didn't matter—if all ministry is up to God alone, all groups would be the same. But this is not the case. How often we see God’s power restricted in groups with poor leaders! Meanwhile, other groups seem to flourish both inwardly and in outward growth. God sends leaders into his flock to galvanize and excite people, reminding them of their mission, and firing their imagination for the future. Our tasks can seem routine and uninteresting when carried out without the benefit of leadership. Yet when a good leader arrives, those same tasks seem exciting and worthwhile.

Questions to be answered:

If we accept this view, what does it mean for our actions and attitudes?

What are the signs that we are placing adequate emphasis on God's part in ministry?

What signs would suggest we are putting too much onto God (super-spirituality)?

The Church: Ingrown or Outreaching?

2008-03-19T01:38:00.002-04:00

Nothing is more exciting that living in an outreaching church. Nothing more dreadful than living in an ingrown church. The difference between these two is greater than night and day, as anyone who has experienced both will attest.

In a victorious outreaching church, people feel a tangible sense of excitement as they watch others come to Christ. The church's mission is clear, and God's blessing rests on the community as they share the love of Christ. Both those with evangelistic gifts and those gifted in nurture have their hands full as the needs of lost people and brand new Cristians call out to Christian hearts like the cries of baby birds to their mother. People routinely experience the thrill of sensing God's power flowing through them as he uses them to meet desparate needs in others' lives. Those with encouragement gifting have lots of work to do as they urge forward those who reach out. Prayer ministries are at a premium in an environment that will draw extra fire from Satan, who ignores peace-loving, ingrown churches to focus his attacks on outreaching churches. The outreaching church is always totering on the edge of confusion and chaos as the action challenges those with administrative gifting to keep up.

As the pace of outreach picks up, every member is naturally compelled to lay aside any number of selfish issues that might lead to fights and dissapointment, to grab the nearest oar and pull for all they are worth. With more younger, unsanctified Christians in the group, financing the church's ministry is always a challenge. Even though people are growing in the area of giving, the church is chronically short of finance, trying to stretch a dollar and get by with less. Staff members have to live with tremendous sacrifice as they earn far less than their secular counterparts. They do so willingly because they are excited to be a part of the spiritual action.

An ingrown church suffers pitifully by comparison. The biggest question in the minds of members of an ingrown church is "What's the point?" As the sense of reality in people's Christian walk drifts into eclipse, a quiet desperation wells up. "What's wrong with me?" people wonder. They begin to question whether they have drifted away from God. With a sigh, they may remember earlier days in their Christian journey and wonder where the zeal went. An ingrown church is rarely unified. In the absence of clear direction, everyone has a different idea of what the church needs. Yet, outright division may not occur for the simple reason that no one has the energy to put up a fight. Squabbling and negativity are the more common result.

While outreaching churches feel the power of God shaking them in annointed ministry, people in ingrown churches live in a dangerous experiential vacuum. In this vacuum of healthy experience with God, the quest for excitement can lead to bizarre and dangerous conclusions. People are ripe for exploitation by those who promise to fill their vacuum with the final experience. Depressed people in the ingrown church often turn to the standby pacifier of religion the world over: religious dissociation. Dissociation means a separation of attention, or an altered consciousness. People who no longer sense the reality of God in their normal state of mind try to "zone out" in a dream-like state which they interpret to be the presence of the Spirit.

Efforts to attain this dissociated state may become quite frenzied, sometimes including corporate self-deception as everyone agrees to unspoken rules like "Miracle stories and manipulation can never be questioned, because that would be quenching the Spirit." Some churches may become quite artificial in their deliberate efforts to stimulate dissociation. What evoked the sense of God's presence at one time may not be enough for long, and the group may turn to more strange and far-out efforts to preserve the sense that something is happening spiritually.

Strangely, we find no suggestion in Scripture that the people of God should seek dissociation. On the contrary, Christians are called to be "alert and sober," ready to engage in spiritual warfare. When extraordinary experience came to people in the Bible, it did so unexpectedly and spontaneously without any need to meet and pump up the juices. But when dissociation becomes the goal of the church, prayer is perverted. Instead of being a time of simple communion with God and a crucial tool for waging spiritual warfare, prayer now becomes the avenue to a pleasure state. Intead of praying as a ministry to others, I begin to see prayer as my time of transcendence and dissociation. Prayer has become self-centered.

Don't think I'm pointing the finger at the charismatic church. Many charismatic churches are among the best outreaching churches. A great example would be Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California. Many non-charismatic churches are among the worst ingrown churches. I believe the movement in some evangelical circles toward high liturgy is an indication of an ingrown experience quest. Some charismatic and pentecostal churches are ingrown as well. If the shoe fits, wear it.

The ingrown church has lost its sense of mission. Experience becomes a problem only because the church isn't sure what it's supposed to do. Instead of experience following after spiritual reality--a natural reaction to the great hand of God moving in the church's midst--experience becomes an end in itself. This is why the ingrown group turns features of healthy Christianity into unhealthy gimmicks. While prayer, praise, the performing arts, and worship should take their natural place in the lives of Christians actively serving God and seeing him work, in the ingrown church these become the hoped-for avenue of experience to fill the aching vacuum of reality with Christ. How can praise and worship be authentic when we have one eye on God and one eye on our emotional thermometer, checking to see whether we are attaining an adequate high?

Am I exaggerating? If so, why not set me straight?

Misuse of History by Christians

2008-03-16T00:23:00.008-04:00

While reading and critiquing Pagan Christianity, I saw that one of the sources in their bibliography was a book that was popular in some circles in the 80's called The Torch of the Testimony by John W. Kennedy.

The book came to my attention at the time because it was making the rounds in my own group, Xenos Fellowship. The book argues the thesis that the Spirit wants to operate His church based on Scriptural authority and direct guidance, but that man always replaces these with his own institutional framework designed to preserve his power and control over others. He argues that throughout the history of the church, God has again and again broken out of the old wine skins in underground New Testament style lay-led movements.

Such a thesis contains much truth, and is very tantalizing to readers from a lay-led New Testament “no frills” group like Xenos. I've written on the subject myself in Organic Disciplemaking and other essays. The question that must be asked in the case of this book is whether Kennedy is a faithful teacher of such an important point. I read the book, and became immediately alarmed that a piece like this could cause serious damage in our church unless carefully critiqued. I felt the need to warn our people that when Kennedy teaches church history, he is not true to the record. These were some of my comments:

Kennedy’s coverage of the themes of Church History are objectionable for two very important reasons. First, his work contains no documentation. A book of this type, which refers to the teachings of historical figures not familiar to the modern reader should be carefully and fairly documented in order to deserve any credibility whatsoever. Apart from such documentation we are really left with the claim of the author that certain things are true, without any proof. In this case the saying of the ancients applies, “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.” (“That which is offered without proof may be rejected without proof.”)

Secondly, Kennedy is repeatedly and flagrantly one-sided in his coverage of history. He characterizes various movements and leaders either as eager servants of Satan, or as servants in the very image of Christ, whereas the truth is rarely so black and white. The figures we really meet with in Church History are much more of a mixture of good and evil than Kennedy admits. Therefore his work lacks balance and hence ultimately, truth. A few examples will demonstrate this lamentable feature in his work.

Of the early father Origen, nothing critical is offered. He is praised for having “particularly clear idea of the nature of the church. The church, he held, was spiritually based, and all those who were recipients of divine life belonged to it.” Kennedy goes on to say that “It should not worry us that some of Origen’s views were later stigmatized as heresy... few men particularly used of God...[who have not] been called heretics.”1

Unfortunately, while this may be somewhat true, Kennedy fails to mention that Origen actually was heretical on several key points. He was affected heavily by neo-platonism.2 He taught that humans existed before their physical birth, and that sins committed in the previous life had led to their imprisonment in physical bodies. Origen was also a leading exponent of the allegorical hermeneutic which has generated more heresy than almost any other thing. He taught that even Satan will be saved.3

On the medieval “Cathari” protesters, Kennedy points out that they were iconoclastic, and anti-sacramental. However, he fails to mention that they were Manichaen-style dualists who believed in two gods. Their resistance to icons and ritual was not based on scriptural reasoning, but on a philosophical dichotomization of the physical and the spiritual.4

On the Waldensians, Kennedy recounts their reversion to scripture as the source of authority for the church, but fails to mention that they were essentially Roman Catholic in their doctrine on other points. He also naively accepts the claim of fourteenth century Waldensians that their movement began at the time of Pope Sylvester in the 300’s AD—a position that is absent from all early Waldensian literature, and is not accepted by any competent modern historians.5

Kennedy’s evaluation of the Montanist movement in the late second century includes the thought that “dependence upon learning... was slowly paralyzing the church’s life."6 These dichotomizations between knowledge and form on one hand, and spiritually on the other are so common throughout the book, that they spoil what good historical work was done. As a result, The Torch of the Testimony becomes, not a balanced recounting and analysis of church history, but a one-sided and simplistic sermon.

Even though we may find ourselves in sympathy with some of the positions argued in this book, the absence of balance, and the dishonest omission of important contradictory material place the book, in my view, in the category of irresponsible historical polemicizing. This book should not be read without critical examination of every position offered. Those who are not in a position to check Kennedy’s work would probably do well to stick with a more main-stream historical survey such as Lauteurette or Gonzalez.

Barna and Viola aren't as bad as Kennedy, although they apparently used his stuff, and there were similarities. Unbalanced use of history is invalid and dishonest. I know it's hard to write a popular book that thoroughly covers the whole span of historical findings for these point, but we have to try to be balanced, non-selective, and as unbiased as possible. If proponents of every-member-ministry, early church-style ecclesiology go around shooting off inaccurate statements about church history we aren't going to do our cause any good.

Footnotes:

1 John W. Kennedy, The Torch of the Testimony (Golita, Ca.: Christian Books) p.78,79.

2 Kennedy himself seems to have been influenced by neo-platonism. He consistently fails to criticise dualistic heresy, and makes dualistic statements himself. See below on the Montanists.

3 Justo L. Gonzalez, The History of Christianity, Vol.ÿ1, (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1984) pp.81,82.

4 John W. Kennedy, The Torch of the Testimony, pp.117,118.

5 John W. Kennedy, The Torch of the Testimony pp.118,119. For a balanced view of this movement see Giorgio Tourn, The Waldensians, (Torino, Italy: Claudiana Editrice, 1980)

6 John W. Kennedy, The Torch of the Testimony pp.82,83 The Montanists were eventually discredited because of wild extremes in practice associated with religious ecstasies and so-called "prophecy" which was actually provably false in many cases. Typically, these facts are not mentioned by Kennedy.

Our Experience with Church Multiplication

2008-03-13T12:01:00.009-04:00

Xenos Christian Fellowship (www.xenos.org) began planting house churches in Columbus Ohio in1970 during the Jesus revolution. During the next 37 years, scores of house churches were planted in Central Ohio. Together, they formed an association viewed as a single local church, along the lines of large city churches in the New Testament. A single eldership oversees the ministry of 850 leaders (“servants” “ministers” or “deacons” in the New Testament).

Today, Xenos is an association of around 270 house churches with over 5000 people attending. Each house church sees its goal as self-replication from within. The group is known for strong personal discipleship and evangelism that penetrates the - non Christian community in Columbus. Unlike house church planting movements that are completely spontaneous, Xenos house churches need to gain approval from the central eldership for new church plants. Each church is team-led with 3-6 leaders who must qualify for the role in terms of personal character, learning, and proven ministry competence.

Today, I am most excited about the church multiplication movement growing in the huge campus area formed by the proximity of Ohio State University (50,000+ students) and Columbus State University (20,000+ students). In this area, Xenos has grown during the past 10 years from three to thirty student-aged house churches, while planting eight additional house churches based on married graduates moving into family life. The average size of each group is 23 students. Like other Xenos home churches, these groups are led by teams of leaders who have completed formal classroom instruction, have won non Christians to faith, and have mentored them in personal discipleship.

Xenos house churches also operate “cell groups.” These groups are all male or female, and center on discipleship, in-depth study, and accountability. Campus house churches also operate “ministry houses.” These are houses of discipleship, where 6 to 12 students live together, learning how to meet others’ needs, hosting fellowship events, and reaching out to the non Christian community. The group currently operates 65 such houses.

A lot of the house churches we have contacted around the country are older, and that usually means something very different in terms of the ethos of the groups. We are excited to see student-aged believers taking the ‘bit in their mouth’ so to speak, and running off with this expanding movement. Most of the 700+ students met Christ at Xenos, so we don’t see any of the traditional church mentality that can be so hard to break out of. The majority of our students are eager for the day they can lead their own house church.

My daughter and I wrote our book, Organic Disciplemaking to help train upcoming disciple makers in the group. There you can read a good description of how this kind of church planting group runs.

The Power of Multiplication

2008-03-09T01:29:00.011-05:00

Here are some thoughts from Organic Disciplemaking on multiplication growth as opposed to linear growth in the church.

Multiplication Growth

Both Christian and secular observers recognize the New Testament church as a perfect example of a church planting movement. In this type of movement, local house churches each strive to replicate themselves by planting additional churches. The result can be exponential growth.

To understand the power of exponential growth, consider the following scenario: Nobody would feel bad about a church that could win fifty thousand people in two years. In fact, we know of no church that has done so well. And if they won an additional fifty thousand each two years thereafter, such a church could win 1.5 million people during a sixty-year period. Remarkable indeed! This would truly be a super church.

On the other hand, a single house church of thirty people, where the average member did nothing but win and disciple one other person during a two-year period would seem rather unremarkable. They would have a mere sixty people after two years, and would become two home churches. But if the original group and the new group both did the same thing during the following two years, and this process continued for the next sixty years, the result would be far more remarkable than that of the super church. In fact the duplicating group would have won 16 million people! They would, in fact have out-performed the super church by more than ten times! Not only that, but within another twenty-five years, this duplicating group would have won every person on earth.

We are not suggesting these numbers are realistic, but they do illustrate the power of exponential growth. However, notice two important points about these calculations:

1. To achieve true multiplication growth, the duplication of individuals and churches must go forward without degradation. If the quality of disciples or churches declines at all with each duplication event, the whole process breaks down very quickly. Quality is one key to ongoing duplication. Historians have noted that church planting movements tend to fizzle out after a number of years. Why? Probably some movements compromise on quality for the sake of quantity. Others may grow so concerned about quality that they cease duplicating and become saddled with too many rules and restrictions.

2. In the duplication model, results are very small during the early years, compared with the super church. By year 10, for example, the duplicating group would have only 480 members in sixteen house churches, while the super church would already have a quarter million members. Can you imagine these two groups looking over at each other? How inferior the duplicating group would feel with less than five hundred members to show for ten years hard work, seeing a super church nearby that had reached a quarter million people during the same period! At this stage the super church would be more than five hundred times larger than the duplicating group. Surely, it would seem, God’s blessing rests on the super church, and not on the duplicating church. (Although we know the duplicating church is actually doing ten times better than the super church, though it doesn’t show yet). It would take a powerful act of faith to continue using the duplication approach. Anyone impatient for quick results will abandon duplication.

Organic growth is biblical and powerful.

[i] For instance, the World Christian Encyclopedia, estimates that by A.D. 100 there were 1 million Christians in the Roman Empire out of a population of 181 million. David B. Barrett, ed., World Christian Encyclopedia. A Comparative Study of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900-2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 3. Recently, Rodney Stark has written a book offering an entirely implausible estimate of only 8000 Christians by the end of the first century. We would join most historians in rejecting this estimate. In the first place, we can account for 8000 Christians within the first few chapters of Acts, unless these narratives are completely discounted. Secondly, his estimate is based on a straight mathematical formula assuming 40% growth per decade for 300 years, ending in six million Christians by the time of Constantine. But this is not how Christianity grew. The growth was far better during the early years and slowed thereafter. Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, (Princeton: The Princeton University Press, 1996). For a more responsible account see Latourette: “Our records, unsatisfactory though they are, suffice to show that by A.D. 180 Christians were in all the provinces of the Empire and in Mesopotamia.” Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1970) 85. He also observes, “Never in the history of the race has this record ever quite been equaled. Never in so short a time has any other religious faith, or, for that matter, any other set of ideas, religious political, or economic, without the aid of physical force or of social or cultural prestige, achieved so commanding a position in such an important culture.” 112. Of course Islam and Communism spread fast, but both used military force. Notice that Tacitus refers to the “huge multitude” of Christians captured during Nero’s persecution Tacitus, Anal. XV. 44. Shortly after the first century, anti-Christian governor Pliny says that in his province Christians were so numerous that temples were empty, and they couldn’t sell sacrificial animals or fodder. (Pliny, 10.96.1-2)

[ii] If the same rate of growth had continued, everyone on earth would have been a Christian before the end of the second century. Only in our own day to we see a comparable level of growth in some parts of the world, unfortunately not including Europe or the U.S. See Martin Robinson and Dwight Smith, Invading Secular Space: Strategies for Tomorrow’s Church, (Grand Rapids, MI: Monarch Books, 2003) Chapter 1. Also see David Garrison, Church Planting Movements, (Midlothian, VA: WIGTake Resources, 2004).

Pagan Christianity? by Viola and Barna Part 4

2008-03-01T16:40:00.008-05:00

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3

Why critique a book in detail chapter by chapter? On the Amazon reviews for this book and on Frank's website, critics are frequently charged with not having read the book. At other times, defenders have complained that critics have failed to argue with the content or points in the book but just dismissed in a general way. Well I did read it, and my problems are with specific positions taken.

Today we start with the chapter, “The Pastor: Obstacle to every member functioning.” This is the most accurate chapter in the book. Traditional church people will have a hard time facing the truth here, but Viola and Barna have correctly traced the development of the monarchical of leadership that has ted church history and still controls the church today, in spite of the reformation.

The shift away from corporate leadership to single leaders, the separation of the idea of bishops from the idea of elders, these are changes that began very early in the church. The concentration of power into a hierarchical structure, along with the idea that only these were capable of interpreting scripture, later supplemented with the idea that only they could offer the sacraments; these added up to a complete disenfranchisement of normal Christians from meaningful ministry.

Tithing and clergy salaries: Their section on how tithing is strictly an Old Testament approach to giving is excellent. Unfortunately, again they feel the need to over-reach. They claim, “Elders (shepherds) in the New Testament were not salaried. They were men with an earthly vocation. They gave to the flock rather than taking from it…. Giving a salary to pastors elevates them above the rest of God’s people.” (180)

Certainly, there were unpaid elders in the New Testament, but these statements are exaggerated, unsupported, and wrong. The authors correctly point out that Paul sometimes worked as a tent-maker and paid his own expenses, but they imply that he always operated that way. They ignore the cases when he received financial support (Acts. 18:5 compare Phil. 4:15). They ignore that Paul and Jesus taught that the laborer is worthy of his hire, referring to Christian workers being supported by the church. They steer-wrestle the passage where Paul told Timothy that elders who work hard at preaching and teaching should be paid generously. (1Tim. 5:17, 18) In a question at the end of the chapter, they try to respond to this passage with a literalistic interpretation of "double honor," saying it means these elders should get more respect. This ignores the context and how Paul uses the notion of not muzzling the ox while he is threshing. (vs. 18) They fail to deal with Gal. 6:6 in context: "Let him who is taught share all good things with him who teaches." According to the authors, only itinerant workers could be supported financially. In fact, the early church did pay elders who taught a lot, although not all elders.

Their theology of church finance is flawed. They think anyone who lets the church support them is "taking from the church" instead of giving to the church. By this logic, anyone who lets others in the church bless them (with, for instance, counseling, teaching, encouragement) is a taker instead of a giver. In fact, we are to serve and give and to let others serve us. They think paying someone elevates them above the others in the church--a view that, if true would remove any basis for paying anyone ever. My objection to these views is not that they are not held by any mainstream church group or theologians (although that is true). The problem is that they are not taught in scripture. When Paul says "the laborer is worthy of his wages," referring to elders, he is quoting Jesus. This is the New Testament teaching.

I should point out that my understanding of church finance was developed and on record long before I ever received a dollar from the church. Our church was approaching a thousand people in twenty five home churches before we ever put anyone on staff. So, I'm not speaking from a self-serving or biased perspective. When my partner and I gave up our business and went to work for the church I wept because I had wanted to pay my own way. But the church didn't agree and scripture speaks directly to this issue. This claim that elders were never paid in the New Testament church is completely novel and simply doesn't square with the text of the New Testament.

Pagan Christianity by Barna and Viola Part 3

2008-02-29T12:33:00.010-05:00

Read part 1
Read part 2

In this post we examine what the early church did in it's meetings.

The authors correctly argue that we search in vain for a “worship service” concept in the New Testament. Today’s order of worship came from a combination of the Old Testament and pagan sources, as they effectively demonstrate. This drastic difference between traditional worship services and New Testament church meetings is an issue that should be pressed hard because the church is unwilling to face the truth about this sacred cow.

But then the authors begin to claim that the New Testament church was devoid of preaching, and that nobody should preach (unless it was a special occasion or the preacher was a church planter)! They say, “the contemporary sermon delivered for Christian consumption is foreign to both Old and New Testaments.” (88) And, "despite the fact that the contemporary sermon does not have a shred of biblical merit to support its existence, it continues to be uncritically admired in the eyes of most present-day Christians." (101) "The sermon actually detracts from the very purpose for which God designed the church gathering." (p. 86)

At first I thought they were saying that the formalized 3-point alliterated sermons taught in homiletics classes were alien, but no. They mean any sermon. Preaching did not happen in early church meetings, according to these authors, except on special occasions or by visiting church planters. They think Crysostom and Augustine popularized the Greco-Roman homily taught in rhetoric classes. (273) They say giving sermons and the art of preaching were "stolen from the pagans. A polluted stream made its entrance into the Christian faith and nuddied its waters. And that stream flows just as strongly today as it did in the fourth century." (93)

I felt confused. Yeah, foreign elements came into preaching during this period, especially the fact that it was restricted to bishops and priests.

But consider the following:

Paul characterized his times with the Ephesians as “teaching you publicly and from house to house.” (Acts 20:20), a practice he pursued “daily” according to Luke. (Acts 19:9)
The Christians in Jerusalem “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching.” (Acts 2:42)
Paul’s calls on Timothy to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:1,2) and to “give attention to the public reading of scripture” (1 Timothy 4:13). The pastoral epistles are loaded with instructions to preach and teach.
He includes “if anyone has a teaching,” in his description of a house church meeting. (1 Cor. 14:26) Yes, this could be a short word-based admonition as they argue, or it could be a planned teaching. Nothing in the passage says which is true.
He refers to elders who “work hard at preaching and teaching.” (1 Thess. 5:17) This one is important because it shows these are not visiting church planters, but week-in week-out preachers.

All these point to the fact that early church meetings centered substantially on the word of God and preaching/teaching. Our earliest description of a Christian meeting (Justin Martyr in the first apology c. 140 AD) says, “the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.” So Viola’s and Barna’s claim that the early church was all spontaneous and subjective singing and personal sharing is very different, I think, from what we see in the New Testament, just as what we see in today’s worship service is different.

I totally agree with their claim that the idea of a worship service arose as a response to the vacuum left by the loss of mutual ministry during the third century. This can be adequately demonstrated. But why do they weaken their argument by over-reaching and trying to prove that leaders didn’t preach in the New Testament?

The New Testament does demonstrate regular teaching and preaching, contrary to their argument. Preaching did not have to be impromptu and unplanned as they argue.

Paul calls on Timothy to be diligent so he can “handle accurately the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15) That implies studying. Paul’s “preaching daily at the lecture hall of Tyrannus” Acts 19:9) doesn’t sound very impromptu. The crowd at Solomon’s porch numbered in the thousands. Are we to suppose the apostles weren’t teaching and preaching to large crowds even though it says they were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching? This was all impromptu and interactive? I don’t think so. There is no basis for claiming these lectures are impromptu, or only for special occasions, other than the authors’ preconceptions.

As discussed in the previous post, Viola and Barna have a concept of a meeting without planning or human direction, and the notion of preaching the word doesn’t fit that picture. But I don’t think their picture comes from the New Testament. In Acts 20, Luke records a “breaking of bread” meeting where Paul taught and preached until midnight. That’s a lot of preaching and teaching! I believe if anything, the preaching in the New Testament was way longer and more in-depth than typical sermons today.

Yes, the nature of preaching changed in later church history, and it became something that is not questioned or discussed by the group, which is a mistake. (That's why we open the floor for comments, questions, or sharing after each and every sermon at our large and small meetings.) But advocates for organic s of the church should avoid mixing exaggerated claims in with legitimate claims, thus leaving themselves open to easy dismissal.

See a balanced and well-thought out review here.

Read on to Part 4

Pagan Christianity? by Barna and Viola Part 2

2008-02-28T10:05:00.009-05:00

Read Part 1

George Barna and Frank Viola have written a new book, Pagan Christianity? Exploring the roots of our church practices. In part 1 I explained why I'm unhappy that they took valid points and pressed them to extremes that undermined their thesis. In that post, I discussed their coverage of church buildings.

Their coverage of buildings was similar to their work on church leadership, the subject of this post.

They start out with an important point--that the early church developed the unbiblical concept of clergy and laity--a concept that has been catastrophic in the history of the church. They trace the development of this concept through the second century and into the third by which time the notions of the clergyman as a priest and the monarchical bishop were well-entrenched.

The only addition I would suggest is more discussion on why some of the early fathers went so extreme in insisting that people listen to nobody but the bishop or those authorized by the bishop (priests). I don't accept that it was simply a case of them imitating Roman pagan culture. I think the main reason was that they were terrified at how rapidly false doctrine was spreading through the church. Gnosticism and related teachings posed a real threat to the future of Christianity in the second century. But instead of teaching people why it was messed up and how to refute it from scripture, the leadership tried to silence the voice of Gnostics by outlawing their teaching in favor of approved, or official teachers. This same faulty strategy for maintaining doctrinal purity has been used down through history and up to the present day.

But on the whole, Barna's and Viola's coverage of this unfortunate development and the damage it did to the body of Christ was good. Once ministry came to be viewed as the province of the clergy, Christianity became a new religion, unrecognizable from a biblical perspective. As I argued in Organic Disciplemaking, one horrific result was that disciple making in the New Testament sense diminished to the vanishing point. Only clergy would be discipled from then on, so 99% of all Christians were left to languish in spiritual ignorance and immaturity. The notion of practicing your spiritual gifts and developing your own ministry disappeared from Christian history for almost all Christians during this period.

Another awful result was the complete loss of accountability for church leaders. People today are generally unaware that the Bible was taken out of people's hands very early in the history of the church. Reading and interpreting the Bible was reserved for the clergy. Increasingly, people had no way to know whether the things their priest or bishop said were of God or whether they made it up. Once this happened, anything was possible. Back in New Testament times, God had prescribed that prophets should speak, and the rest should "pass judgment." (1 Cor. 14:29) Without access to the Bible, this practice disappeared very early in the church's history.

So this section of the book was off to a great start, like most of their chapters. Then came the over-reaching and the extreme conclusions.

Instead of leaving it that the church never should have designated clergy as some special class who were alone capable of interpreting scripture and preaching, they advance a mode of church life virtually devoid of human leadership! When discussing the early church, they give their definition of a New Testament meeting straight out: “What do we mean by a first-century-styled church? It is a group of people who know how to experience Jesus Christ and express him in a meeting without any human officiation.” They add that “the one who plants a first-century-styled church leaves that church without a pastor, elders, a music leader, a Bible facilitator, or a Bible teacher… those believers will know how to sense and follow the living, breathing, headship of Jesus Christ in a meeting. They will know how to let Him invisibly lead their gatherings.” (234)

Viola describes going to a house church today where people show up, begin singing, someone else sings and they hold hands, someone shares what God showed them that week, someone else shares, and that's it. The only Bible teaching is a guy standing up and reading some scripture and showing how it glorifies Christ for a couple of minutes. Someone else stands and adds some thoughts. More singing, poems, sharing, and "none of this was rehearsed, prescribed, or planned." (78,79) They think if a group "has a leader present who is the head of the meetings... such meetings are directed by a human head who either controls or facilitates it." Instead, meetings should be "without human control or interference." (266)

As someone whose mother was Quaker, I fully understand the longing some feel for spontaneous worship as the mark of authenticity. This is exactly how Quaker worship times work. I also was at a ton of meetings like this back in the Jesus movement, and more recently when visiting house churches in the U.S. But ask yourself, “Why can God only lead after the meeting starts, rather than beforehand?” Just because someone prepares their teaching or preaching doesn’t imply that God isn’t leading, as these authors repeatedly claim. And this assertion—that only impromptu speech is spiritual—is so extreme and unbiblical that it undermines the whole case against formalism. Note: they aren't just saying that spontaneous meetings are okay, they argue that this is the ONLY valid kind of ongoing meeting for churches. Stay tuned for why this is wrong.

Yes, the Bible portrays an interactive meeting with all using their gifts in 1 Cor. 14. but it never says the meeting has no leader, and other portrayals of meetings in the New Testament definitely show a leader present, and planned preaching and teaching, as I will show in my next post.

I've attended these kind of house churches, and I find them boring, often strange, overly subjective, uninformative, and sometimes narcissistic. Being spontaneous doesn't translate into spirituality, and planning doesn't equate to carnality. These are simply false dichotomies, and extremism. Instead, meetings should have both planned parts (like teaching and preaching) and spontaneous parts, and there's nothing contradictory or wrong in that.

The house church movement associated with Viola holds that human leadership violates the leadership of the Holy Spirit.This movement rejects the validity of human leadership in a way that is every bit as alien to the New Testament as many of the other features detailed in this book. From one end of the Bible to the other, God uses human leaders. Early church members are repeatedly called on to respect and follow their leaders. (Heb. 13:7; 17; 1Cor. 16:15,16, etc.) By over-reaching in this way, Barna and Viola undermine the credibility of their own argument, which is a shame because these are points that need to be made.

Read on to Part 3

Pagan Christianity? by Viola and Barna Part 1

2008-02-27T01:12:00.010-05:00

Not good enough.

As a leader in a house church planting ministry, I so wanted to like this book! Frank Viola has been writing in favor of a more organic understanding of church life for years. Observers have often pointed out similarities between his books and some of mine. I see the overlap as well, along with some differences, which should be clear from my most recent book, Organic Disciplemaking. [The need for, and nature of disciplemaking was one area of solid agreement!] Readers like me who share the authors’ desire for an organic, New Testament-style church will experience real excitement while reading some parts of this courageous critique of the modern institutional church. But I’m afraid the work is seriously flawed.

We’ve all seen steer wrestling at rodeos. The cowboy seized the horns of the steer and twists his head, eventually forcing the hapless animal in a direction he never wanted to go. Some interpreters steer-wrestle the Bible and history to fit pre-conceived views of the church. I’m not denying that many, and maybe most of their claims are true. But mixing in exaggeration and selectivity can seriously distort the picture.

I am on their side of the river, and I’m recommending this book, even though I think they over-reached on a number of their points and weakened their case as a result. They show how the concept of church buildings as holy places originated and drew most of its content from pagan influences. They focus on the major formalism added at the time of Constantine, but in fact, church buildings were around, and were viewed as holy houses of God well before Constantine. He did greatly expand the acceptance and the number of “churches” throughout the empire. They then over-reach to the extreme of implying that using buildings at all is pagan and alien to the New Testament.

Their suggestion that the church could just rent or borrow a building like the schoolroom of Tyrannus or Solomon’s portico for "special occasions" doesn’t match New Testament precedent. Paul didn’t rent the schoolroom for a special occasion, but as a base of ministry that he carried on “daily.” (Acts 19:9) Solomon’s portico was in regular use also. Acts 2:46 says, "Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart."
Why should we conclude that large venues like this were for special occasions only, when they appear in the same sentence with things like breaking bread and house church meeting? Outdoor venues like that work well for warm-climates like Jerusalem. It wouldn’t work so well where I live in Ohio.

The point is that the poisonous part—viewing buildings as the “house of God” and auditoriums as “sanctuaries” (which means “holy places”)—should be decried without discrediting the whole argument by exaggerating. The authors think any ownership or regular use of buildings is bad, and steer-wrestle the scriptures to suit their preconceived view.

Read on to Part 2

The Prayer Ministry of the Church

2008-02-24T12:41:00.003-05:00

The Bible teaches that spiritual ministry can only be accomplished through the power of God. (Psalms 127:1,2) God's power is released into ministry situations through prayer, as the following passages demonstrate. Not only did the apostles feel the need to have their own ministries supported by prayer, they sought to accomplish ministry in others through prayer.

Eph. 6:18,19 "With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel."
2 Thess. 3:1 "Finally, brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified, just as {it did} also with you"
Heb. 13:18 "Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a good conscience, desiring to conduct ourselves honorably in all things."
Col. 1:9 "For this reason also, since the day we heard {of it}, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding."

hristian workers must clearly understand the role God plays in evangelism, discipleship and other aspects of ministry. Unless we consciously operate out of a God-centered model of ministry, we will automatically default to a human-centered model, and all the defeat that comes with it.

A moment's reflection tells us that what we propose to accomplish in Christian ministry is supernatural. To reach people's hearts with conviction of their need for Christ, to train them up in the faith, to impart the deep things of God in a life-changing way, to oppose and defeat powerful evil spirits—these are acts that no human can hope to accomplish, no matter how intelligent and competent that person may be. The key to ministry success is always the same: That God moves through us "leading us in his triumph." (2 Cor. 2:14) Spiritual failure in ministry is predictable when leaders try to supplant the power of God with human charisma, ingenuity, marketing skill, force of will, or social manipulation, even when these are supplied from the best intentions.

God's call for the church Part 5

2008-02-18T01:17:00.006-05:00

View part 1
View part 2
View part 3
View part 4

Part 5:Ministry to the Social and Physical Needs of Our Society

The biblical mandate for social relief ministry

The ethics of generosity in helping the poor is rooted in the person and work of Christ himself according to 2 Cor. 8:9, "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich." This example of Christ's should lead us to see our responsibility to use the wealth God has entrusted to us to glorify him by sharing with the poor.

John draws the connection this way: "We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. (1 Jn. 3:16-19) Christ's love should move us to compassion for those who are suffering from poverty.

Jesus agreed that caring for the physical needs of others is an essential part of what it means to love others as we love ourselves in the parable of the good Samaritan. (Lk. 10:25-37)

We are all made in the image of God, and it should pain us that there is gross inequality. When Paul led relief efforts for the poor believers in Judea, he reasoned with the Corinthians that they should give generously to the effort because, "this is not for the ease of others and for your affliction, but by way of equality--at this present time your abundance being a supply for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want, that there may be equality; as it is written, `He who {gathered} much did not have too much, and he who {gathered} little had no lack.'" (2 Cor. 8:13-15) Of course, the ideal is not that all Christians become poor so that there will be equality.

Rather, the ideal is that the poor become more prosperous so that their needs are met.

Jesus taught caring for the poor in very strong terms when he described this scene at the last judgment:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat...' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, `Lord, when did we see you hungry...?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me.'" (Mt. 25:34-40)

Paul makes it clear that we should also prioritize the needs of Christian poor, without neglecting non-Christian poor. (Gal. 6:10) However, this support of the poor is for those who are victims of tragedy, or who are disadvantaged, or not able to work. It is not for those who are unwilling to work. (2 Thess. 3:6- 10)

Finally, the extent to which we go in helping the disadvantaged is a matter of private conscience. It is not to be legislated by the church. This can be seen from Paul's comments in 2 Cor. 9:7 "Let each do just as he has purposed in his own heart. . . not under compulsion. . ."

The book of Proverbs has some striking promises and warnings in the area of caring for the poor. Consider what each of these verses teach, and what the application is.

Prov. 13:23 "Abundant food is in the fallow ground of the poor, but it is swept away by injustice."
Prov. 14:21 "He who despises his neighbor sins, But happy is he who is gracious to the poor."
Prov. 14:31 "He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors him."
Prov. 19:17 "He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord, And he will repay him for his good deed."
Prov. 21:13 "He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor Will also cry himself and not be answered."
Prov. 22:9 "He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor."
Prov. 28:27 "He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses."
Prov. 29:7 "The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern."

Xenos' strategy for dealing with social relief ministry

At Xenos, we believe that the church needs to carry out the biblical mandate outlined above to the extent we are able, based on a carefully thought-out community development strategy. Our social relief ministry, Urban Concern follows these principles:

We should devote the vast majority of our resources to projects that effect permanent socio-economic as well as spiritual change. In other words, we want to impact families and communities with money, help, and the gospel in a way that is self-sustaining over decades, not merely feed hungry people in a way that is soon forgotten in an endless sea of need. Many social problems have spiritual and moral causes which need to be addressed at the same time that we meet immediate need. Any immediate needs that we meet should be a part of an over all strategy to effect permanent change within a specified community.
We should devote more resources to meeting need in foreign countries where poverty is much worse than in the United States. This part of our strategy must be worked out in conjunction with the imperatives in the area of world missionary outreach mentioned earlier.
We should accept limitations in the size of the area and the number of people we help for the sake of effecting real change. This means that we are obligated to say "No" to many worth-while projects in order to avoid diluting our impact in chosen communities.

God's calling to the church Part 4

2008-02-15T00:23:00.005-05:00

View part 1
View part 2
View part 3

The fourth calling for the church is to make disciples. I discuss this thoroughly in Organic Disciplemaking

Jesus called the church to go and make disciples of all the peoples. Mt. 28. A disciple is a student. Ancient rabbis spent years with their disciples, teaching their way of life, their understanding of scripture, and how to teach it to others. Like Jesus, they often lived with their disciples for extended periods. The process of discipleship was a complete shaping of a new rabbi—a passing on of everything the rabbi had; his character, his knowledge, his values, and his wisdom. Ancient Jewish discipleship was an educational process, but it contained much more than our modern concept of education. Rabbis transmitted biblical knowledge, but the close association in daily life also transmitted elements not found in books. The rabbi sought to transmit his outlook, wisdom, and character. This was personalized education where two men formed a close, trusting relationship. Within that relationship, the rabbi could sense inner spiritual needs in his disciple and minister to those. The idea was to produce a certain kind of person. The intensive personal attention in this style of training dictated that a rabbi focus on only a few disciples at a time.

Jesus apparently took this model and used it fully, even expanding on the norm. He lived and traveled with the twelve, and seems to have focused even more on the top three: James, John, and Peter. Although some New Testament authors refer to all Christians as disciples (in the sense that they are all followers of Christ), the majority use refers to those who were trainees of a specific teacher.

The same seems to be true of Paul (the only apostle for whom we have extensive biographical information). Right from the beginning, Paul worked at discipleship. After his three-year stay in Damascus, he had to escape by being lowered from the city walls. According to Acts 9:25 it was “his disciples” who lowered him in a basket.

Later, Paul lived and traveled with numerous young men and at least one married couple, teaching them his extraordinary body of knowledge, both in the Old Testament scriptures (where he was an expert) but also from the amazing revelations he had been given by God. They also got the chance to see Paul at work in the field, and no-doubt participated with him in actual ministry situations. This kind of field training could develop skills and understanding in a way no classroom could. Paul was in a position to see with his own eyes how younger workers ministered. That would lead to the best kind of coaching and feedback.

More than 30 men and women are mentioned by name as fellow-workers with Paul. It seems likely that many of these were discipled by Paul, and there may have been others not mentioned. In a ministry spanning roughly 30 years, Paul could easily have raised up 30 or more disciples.

In one famous passage, Paul instructs his favorite disciple, Timothy, to carry on the work of discipleship:

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. (2 Tim. 2:2)

We can see Paul was concerned with duplicating disciples down through 4 generations: 1) himself 2) Timothy 3) “reliable men” and 4) “others.” From this single verse, we see clearly that Paul used personal discipleship as a conscious strategy for developing leadership in the early church. He also urged women to disciple other women (Tit. 2:3), a practice unknown in Judaism.

In the New Testament church, where there were no seminaries or graduate schools of theology, the church’s leadership was apparently all raised up by a process of personal discipleship. In the absence of any mention of other means for raising up leadership, we can only suppose that such discipleship was likely not just the main means, but the only means used. Apparently not only leaders, but most Christians were discipled at some level in the early church. Paul says, “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.” (Col. 1:28).

God's calling for the church part 3

2008-02-12T22:16:00.003-05:00

See Part 1: The ministry of reconciliation
See Part 2: Koinonia
Ephesians 4:11 says, "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ."

There are two very different interpretations of this passage which lead to two very different answers to the role of leaders in the local church.

The King James Version places a comma between "saints" and "for" in vs. 12. thus suggesting that the leaders do three things:

equip the saints
the work of ministry
building up the body of Christ.

In other words, the leaders do all significant spiritual work and the rest do very little. The King James Version reflected this view which had been held for centuries and reinforced it for succeeding generations. Even today, this is the prominent view of leadership in many, probably most, churches.

Consider the following quotes by leaders and theologians:

". . .both the clergy and the laity have leadership roles, but they are different roles. The clergy are primarily responsible for the assembled phase of the church life. They are called and trained as professionals to preach, to lead worship, to educate. . ., to provide. . .theological counsel, and to lead the congregation's organizational and fellowship life. . ."
"Lay leadership in these areas is important, but it is secondary and supportive."
"(A corporate executive who) realizes that it is the Holy Spirit who has made him head of the research division in a large corporation."
"(The hospital elevator operator) who exercises his ministry by humming a hymn by taking the patient's up to the operating room." (All from Wentz, Ministry As a Way of Life)

Without the comma, everything changes. The leaders equip the believers to do the work of ministry and they build up the body of Christ. In other words, all Christians are ministers with significant spiritual roles to play.

The leaders' primary job is not to do it all, but to equip the "laymen" to minister. They are train them in doctrine and ministry, help them to find their unique ministry roles, provide structures in which they can play these role - and then let them minister!!

Which interpretation is correct?

Without any doubt, the latter is the correct interpretation. For what are the saints being equipped, if not to do the work of ministry? The cases used in Greek also point to the second interpretation.

Vs. 7,8 make it clear that every Christian is spiritually gifted. Such gifting is given in order to perform spiritual ministry (1 Cor. 12:4-6).

Vs. 16 sums up the teaching of this passage by saying that the church is built up by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part.

Many other passages in the New Testament teach that all Christians are gifted and called to ministry (cf. Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:4-11; 1 Pet 4:10,11).

The big problem we see today is that in one church after another, little or no effort is made to equip their members to do anything. Even when churches have training classes (usually attended by a minority) these several week classes are so superficial they don't qualify the people to do anything.

How can any church claim it is doing what the New Testament calls for if they make no strong effort to equip, or train their members for ministry?

Next calling for the church (Part 2)

2008-02-12T00:38:00.002-05:00

See part 1: The Ministry of Reconciliation
Okay, after reconciliation, or along with it, comes Fellowship.

The early Christians "continuously devoted themselves to fellowship." (Acts 2:42) The word for "fellowship" is koinonia, which means "to have in common" or "to share." As those who are united with Christ, we are to share the life of Christ with one another in a way that results in individual and corporate spiritual growth. This is accomplished through the exchange of God's love and truth, which is called "ministry" (which simply means "service").

Koinonia is viewed by the New Testament as a non-optional environment for spiritual growth.

Clearly such koinonia is not just a matter of attending one or two meetings a week. It is much more than that. This is why the verse so often used to stress the importance of attending church (Hebrews 10:25 ". . .not forsaking the assembling together as is the habit of some. . ."), is frequently misunderstood today. This verse is often taken to mean that only our presence at church meetings is necessary. Instead, we find that according to 1 Cor. 12:21 (". . .the eye cannot say to the hand, `I have no need of you'. . ."), it is not just the presence of the other members that we need, but also their function.

Christians are viewed as the body of Christ because we are spiritually united with Christ and with each other. Since we are members of one another, we need to relate to each other in a mutually interdependent way. The important point, therefore, is not just that we attend meetings (although this is a necessary aspect), but that we authentically share the life of Christ with one another. Thus, ". . . speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the Head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love." (Eph. 4:15,16).

How can we practice koinonia?

The New Testament defines normative involvement in Christian koinonia in two major ways. One way is by serving other Christians with our spiritual gifts and receiving others' service through their spiritual gifts. The sphere in which we use our gifts is our ministry, or service.

Another, and perhaps more basic way to practice koinonia is through loving one another in various practical ways. In Jn. 13:34,35, Jesus told his disciples that they were to "love one another as I have loved you." Since they had been with Jesus for several years, they knew how he expressed love to them. Since other Christians would not have this opportunity, the apostles carefully described what this love looks like. Through what are sometimes called the "one another" imperatives of the epistles, we are given a profile of the ways that we can love one another. Below are examples:

Encourage one another (1 Thess. 5:11; Heb. 3:13; 10:25)
Admonish one another (Col. 3:16; Rom. 15:14)
Confess your sins to one another (Jas. 5:16)
Forgive one another (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13)
Accept one another (Rom. 14:1; 15:7)
Serve one another (Gal. 5:13; Rom. 12:10)
Build up one another (1 Thess. 5:11)
Be hospitable to one another (1 Pet. 4:9)

As we practice giving love to other Christians in these ways, and as we allow them to express love to us in these ways, we are practicing koinonia and expressing mutual interdependence as members of Christ and one another.

Christian meetings are important in this regard because they enable us to experience koinonia during the meeting in varying degrees. They also facilitate the meeting of other Christians with whom we can build koinonia-based friendships. New Testament churches commonly met in homes as well as in large groups (see Acts 2:46; 20:20; Rom. 16:5).

Can a church be considered authentic if it has only a third of its members going to a home group? I don't think so. We have 130% attendance at home groups. Yeah, we count our attendance from out home groups, not our big meetings! And that's the way it should be.

Can churches' self-testimony be trusted?

2008-02-04T17:00:00.000-05:00

Brian comments in an earlier post that in a study of megachurches, "18% of the 406 churches claiming that 40% or more were converts, there should be about 70 churches where people are being converted in large numbers."

I don't think so.

In the research work referenced earlier, we also often meet with staffers when studying other churches. We routinely ask them what percentage of people they think are converts. Some pastors admit the percentage is low—as low as 18% in one case, but usually 25 to 40%. Yet the survey in those same churches show that only 3 to 7% are actually converts reached at that church. So far, no pastor has come closer to the truth than five times the actual number.

We don’t suggest the pastors are lying. They appear to actually believe that they are doing five to fifteen times better than they actually are. On the other hand, it’s interesting to notice that the same staffs that can break their statistics down in a dozen different ways from memory are unable to give a statistic for the convert vs. transfer composition of their people. They have so far all admitted that they don’t study that question. Perhaps some leaders don’t want to know the answer to this question?

This is Chadwick claim (See William Chadwick, Stealing Sheep: The Church's Hidden Problems with Transfer Growth, Chadwick thinks church leaders purposely conceal the truth about transfer growth, and that they also purposely seek transfer growth by launching strategies only likely to win transfers.

I can't judge that question, but I do think the blank area in our knowledge here begs for some kind of answer. One thing for sure: You can't go by what churches say about their own composition! Their statements about their attendance are often correct (not always) but their statements on composition have never even come close.

What is the church here for?

2008-02-01T11:13:00.001-05:00

Church leaders and scholars don't agree on what we are here to do as the church. Some think our mission is to extoll God in worship. Others think we are mainly here to build the kingdom of God through reaching non Christians and building them up spiritually.

The New Testament states the church's mission in several different ways. By looking at various formulations, we can gain a sense of the purpose of the church in God's program.

* Jn. 20:21 "Jesus therefore said to them again, 'Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.'"
Jesus calls attention to the nature of his own mission as a way of understanding the mission of the church. To be specific, we could look at Jesus' description of his intent in various places where he declared his own purpose:
* Lk. 19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
* Jn. 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him."
* Mk. 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."

So, viewed this way, we are left here to continue Jesus' work, which is the rescue of humanity.

* Mt. 28:18-20 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'"

This passage contains Christ's so-called "great commission" to the church. We notice that reaching the lost millions in the human race again figures prominently. The church is to go, not to wait for others to come. International missionary outreach is explicitly mentioned.

Notice that baptism is included, as well as "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you." In other words, part of the church's task is to teach and disciple those we have reached with the gospel so they have a healthy walk with God. This process is a natural part of a healthy evangelistic strategy, since those who have been discipled are in the best position to join in the task of reaching others.

* 2 Cor. 5:15-20 "And He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again on their behalf... Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and he has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

In this passage, Paul once again draws the parallel between the mission of Christ and that of the church. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself..." and "he has committed to us the word of reconciliation." The church is to take up the work of reaching those alienated from God (which is the cornerstone of reconciliation). However, our work doesn't stop there. We are to press the work of reconciliation forward in the area of bringing members close to God through enhancing their walk with him, teaching them how to worship him and how to gain victory over their own personal problems. Seen this way, reconciliation is both an event and a process.

* Col. 2:19 "[Beware of those who come up with their own religion instead of] holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God."

Here Jesus is the head of the body of Christ. Our mission is to hold fast to him, receiving our directions and nourishment from him, often through the agency of other members (the "joints and ligaments"). Likewise, we, as joints and ligaments in our own right, are responsible to take of Christ and give it to others. This is describing how Christians depend on each other for ministry within the church. However, he also points out that the whole body "grows with a growth which is from God." In other words, as a living spiritual organism, the church is to grow like other living things. Here the ever-present importance of reaching out to those who do not know Christ is again evident.

* Eph. 4:11 "And he gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love."

In this passage, we again see Paul's vision of the properly functioning body of Christ. Under the headship of Christ, not only are there leaders who equip other members (the saints) but the saints themselves do the "work of service." This work of service is the responsibility and opportunity of "every joint" and of "each individual part." In other words, the vision here is of a community where everyone has a role in being built up spiritually and building up others. The result is growth. Qualitative growth, or spiritual maturity among the members (we are no longer to be children tossed here and there) as well as overall growth through reaching the lost (the growth of the body).

* 1 Pet. 2:9-10 "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

In Peter's version of the commission of the church, the identity of the Christian community is stressed along with its mission. Its identity is that of the people of God. Its mission is to serve as a race of priest-kings who proclaim the excellencies of God. Some versions read "declare the praises of God" (NIV) which is not an accurate translation of the word arete ("virtues" or "excellencies").

Question: What problematic implications arise from the NIV's translation here?

Still no facts on megachurch convert composition

2008-01-31T14:49:00.001-05:00

The Hartford Institute for Religion Research puts out a free powerpoint presentation on Megachurches. They show the amazing increase in number of megachurches, and they have grown in size also.

Unfortunately, they don't address what I opened this discussion on, namely that 90 to 95% of all megachurch growth is pure transfer growth according to their own people. Look at their slides on evangelism:

Maybe they do, but this question isn't necessarily asking about evangelism. This just says they invite people to come. Are they inviting Christians, or non-Christians? We don't know, but this chart is not revealing on that question. It does not prove what the title says.
This says they are willing to talk about their faith, but not many seek opportunities. Again, I don't see evidence here that people are witnessing, or if they are witnessing, that the church is winning non-Christians. Our studies show they are not. They go on to say megachurches do other things for outreach:
But none of these things has anything to do with evangelism! This could be a good list of ways to attract more Christians to your church.
This study is an intriguing example of how some studies may appear to show evangelism, but might not actually show that when it comes to megachurches. We still have no authoritative, reliable study on composition of megachurches.

Carson on authenticity

2008-01-29T21:52:00.001-05:00

Emergent blogger Bob Robinson went to hear D. A. Carson speak on the emergent church in Akron, OH. He quoted Carson as saying, "the Emerging Church is making a plea for authenticity. That’s good. But since the Emerging Church does not use the Bible as its standard of what is authentic or not (relying more on feelings and cultural acceptability), then the authenticity has to be called into question."

This brings up a good point I've thought about quite a bit. How do we define authenticity in Christianity? And how would we recognize it in today's world? Here is where the pragmatic definition of truth runs into trouble. If we define authenticity in pragmatic terms (truth is what works for me), where do we end up? Pretty hard to say.

The notion of "working" can be pretty subjective. What does it mean when we say something "works?" Is Osteen's church "working" when he attracts 47,000 in attendance? Well, he still hasn't matched Sung Myung Moon's success. Unfortunately, while I believe results matter, in the absence of objective guidelines for what God considers success, results tell us nothing. Carson is right. Only scripture can give us the spiritual standards by which to judge results.

Christians should spend time pondering what God teaches on this question. Exactly what are we looking for when we say "this approach works?" What do others say on this? What can we get from scripture? There must be multiple answers.

This is at the heart of the question when it comes to authenticity. Authenticity isn't just a feeling we get because people are being intense. It has to mean that our service for God is real; that God is working in our midst. How would we know?

Accepting Sin in the Church?

2008-01-28T23:59:00.001-05:00

At Monday morning insight Bernie says,
"Another reason why I tend to megachurches, in general, is because they tend to promote "Churchianity" rather than true Christianity (corrupting the Gospel). Keeping the main institution alive takes so much money and time that outreach is severely affected. Then they bring in false teaching about tithing in order to bring in money, to add insult to injury. From experience, they usually also have a "big tent" mentality, which means tolerating all kinds of evil teachings like the prosperity gospel, because they don't want to offend anyone (the donors)."

I wonder about this too. I just bought the new book by Ron Sider called The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience.: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? That's a good question. Why is divorce just as high with so-called "born agains" as it is with non-Christians, according to Barna? Why is fornication rampant in big evangelical churches? Why is no discipline practiced? Every single I've met from one big area church in our city during the past few years was fornicating--including a pastor's son! Nobody seems to care. When couples in our church fall into sin, they know they can to go this church or several others and nobody will say anything just because they are living together. In fact, nobody would have any way to know.

How much difference would it make for huge churches if they practiced church discipline? What if fornication wasn't allowed in the church? What if churches knew enough about their people to realize they were in sin in the first place? What if the church preached against greed instead of extolling it? Would that decrease church growth, or increase it? And should the church take an interest in regulating behavior? Or should we just preach the truth and let the chips fall?

Problems with Megachurches

2008-01-27T13:36:00.001-05:00

JeffD wonders if there is study showing that smaller churches are closing their doors as megachurches grow. Yes.
William Chadwick has written a book, Sheep Stealing: The Church's Hidden Problem with Transfer Growth. Blogger Tim Challies says, "Chadwick writes about the dark side of church growth. Having done extensive research and having examined the fruits of his own early ministry, the author came to the startling revelation that the church growth movement has succeeded far better in pulling believers from other, smaller churches than in reaching the lost. 'Great effort is being expended, but few are actually turning to Christ for the first time. Instead, the faithful are mostly just changing churches' (from the back cover)."
I read Chadwick's book, and I urge all to read it, even though I don't agree with one of his central claims. He thinks when churches take transfers from other churches this is stealing in the ethical sense. I can't accept that, because it implies that churches OWN their members. But there is a moral problem, when the church is structured mainly to appeal to existing Christians and is not reaching non Christians.

According to Barna, small churches have their own problems, including being more theologically liberal and full of low-involvement members. David Charlton agrees from personal experience "Overall attitude is TOTALLY different. In a larger “church”, there’s much more TEAM in everything, while smaller churches overall attitude is apathetic towards involvement and commitment... Clarity of vision or lack of in smaller churches. It seems like every 'gimmick' under the sun is talked about but action rarely gets done-talk is cheap, and people know that." And, "While you’d think as a servant you’d get pastoral care and guidance in a smaller church, what’s true is just the opposite."

But Barna also says tens of thousands will close in the coming decade in Revolution (a book I didn't like at all). And I'm racking my brain to remember where I read extensive research on how the number of small church closings in America is reaching shocking proportions. If anyone can find this research, give it up in a comment. I'm going to have to work on this and get back.

Related Links"
Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary
David Charlton
Tim Challies

Is 90% of all church growth nothing but transfers?

2008-01-26T17:10:00.001-05:00

Over the past decade, Xenos leaders have led research teams to dozens of the most famous and rapidly growing churches around the country to study their methods and outcomes. These include churches from a wide array of approaches—charismatic, seeker-sensitive, cell-based, emergent, house church, health and wealth, satellite churches, extra-local planting, etc. During our early trips, the teams often commented that virtually none of the members or staff they interviewed had met Christ as grown-ups or at that church.

Curious at this anecdotal finding, we decided to begin counting. In the studies since that time, we have determined that large, growing churches in America are gaining nearly all their growth through transfer of believers from other evangelical churches. To make sure of these results, we interview as many members as possible (at least scores, and sometimes hundreds) randomly at services or home groups. We ask them whether they consider themselves Christians, and where and how they became believers. To our own shock, we have found that the number claiming to have become believers at that church is invariably less than 10% of the sample—often less than 5%! In some cases our teams include dozens of researchers and we interview hundreds of members to reduce the sampling error. I am not going to name the churches involved, because I don’t want to cause problems for them. But readers would be shocked like we were if this research were ever published. So far, using this technique, we have only identified three churches where more than 10% of their own people report that they were converted in that church: Willow Creek Community Church. There, we found a significantly higher 23% of the people interviewed saying they became believers at that church. Several others said they were non-Christians still, which is also a good sign (most studies have failed to discover any non-Christians present). Best of all were Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa and Xenos Fellowship. Both these groups have over 60% converts in a typical meeting (both include 7-12% of their own home-grown kids).

We continue this research today, still looking for other large groups where the majority of their growth comes from conversions. If you think you know of one, let us know in a comment!

I discuss this problem more in Organic disciplemaking.

Do you think these results are valid?

Why do you think this is happening to the American church?

What's the answer?

	We should avoid appointing someone as a leader on any basis other than our belief that God has chosen him or her for that role. This rules out leadership based on seniority, on level of scholarship, degrees earned, prestige in the community, personal friendship, etc.
	We should exercise caution when giving, or providing ministry to a young Christian. We should provide opportunity to build ministry, but we would not want to install a young worker into a well-developed ministry he or she did not actually build. Otherwise, we might simulate from the human side what God should provide from his side. The result could be that a person appears to be chosen by God, when in fact we have installed the person in their position artificially. Installing a person into a developed ministry will often result in the "turtle on a fence post" syndrome (i.e. the turtle didn't put himself there, someone else placed him there). We may harm both the church and the individual when we interfere with God's election in this way. It makes more sense to offer young workers opportunities to follow up new people and form discipleship relationships than to offer them ready-made leadership roles like existing cell groups or home groups. An exception to this would be cases where a person has proven leadership in one venue, and we call on them to move to a new ministry. This was apparently what Barnabas did when he summoned Paul from Tarsus to Antioch.
	We should be very reluctant to remove ministry from a young Christian worker. Such removal could result in a subsequent failure to recognize God's choice of the person for leadership because humans have disrupted his or her ministry every time it begins to flourish. There are important exceptions to this rule of thumb warranted in Scripture. The main exception would be the case where the young worker has disqualified him or herself by recent, serious, and objective sin. Scripture teaches the importance of moral character for Christian workers in passages like the requirements for deacons, (which, if violated could result in disqualification). Although young workers are not deacons, the principle would still apply to some extent, that anyone who serves the Lord needs to live up to minimal standards of Christian character. The the Bible provides examples of leaders removed from leadership due to sin or false teaching (1 Tim:1:20; 3 John 9,10). But these passages indicate that such removal should involve serious sin, not minor slip-ups. We would assume the same thing with young workers--they should not be removed from ministry because of minor slip-ups. All the passages warning against hypocrisy also imply that those trying to lead others, should be doing what they preach to a large extent. (Luke 12:1) "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."
	Whether someone is removed from leadership for disciplinary reasons or removes himself for other reasons, this could be an indication that God has not elected the person for leadership at this time. For this reason, we would not restore one who has been removed from leadership back to leadership unless the signs of divine election are again evident. This usually means the person has returned to the beginning stages of ministry and re-built their following. An exception to this might be situations where leaders have temporarily stepped down due to situations judged to be either outside their control, or unimportant.
	Only leaders whose ministry is blessed by God are considered for advancement to higher levels of ministry. If we err in putting in leaders whom God has not chosen for that role, we do better to make such errors at lower levels of leadership rather than higher levels.
	The notion that leaders are chosen by God strongly implies favoring indigenous leadership to imported leadership. Leaders imported from another group cannot be realistically affirmed by the local members and leaders, unless they know those in the former location relatively well. Such imported leaders usually have to depend on external credentials or hearsay for their legitimacy. Although we see the example of Barnabas bringing Paul in from Tarsus to Antioch, Barnabas had personal knowledge of Paul and his ability. Paul had also planted more than one church in Syria and Cilicia before Barnabas came for him. (Acts. 15:36,41)