Posts tagged Church
Quote of the Week – Justin Longacre on What We Don’t Need Church to Do
Mar 10th
Our religion ought to inform our politics as it ought to inform our whole life. There are some political issues we should not be silent on (abortion comes to mind). However, the “culture wars” in America have duped Christians into enlisting in causes that have nothing to do with their religion. Worse still, it makes our religion into simply one aspect of a larger subsuming culture complete with its own schools, dress, music, television shows and diets. It doesn’t take a large jump before those things all become of similar importance, and Christ takes his place in the pantheon between Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck (or Obama and Al Franken, as the case may be). It’s the devil’s old bait-and-switch. Christ didn’t have a problem with the Pharisee’s actual righteousness, he had a problem with assuming that adherence to arbitrary cultural conventions was righteousness. Christianity is not a culture, it is trans-cultural. When we engage in evangelism, it should not be to make people more like us, but rather more like Christ.
- Justin Longacre, “Five Things“
Quote of the Week – Church as Business
Feb 11th
“Church should not be a place for people who can’t make an honest living to pretend they’re bigwig business executives.”
- “Fearsome Tycoon”, From The Boar’s Head Tavern
Sermon Poetry – “The Church of Jesus Christ is Held and Kept by Grace and Love”
Jan 26th
Sermon Poetry, 24 January 2010
Sermon Title – “Christian Unity and the Pastoral Ministry – #3”
Sermon Text – Ephesians 4:12-16
Preacher – Pastor Larry Vincent
The Church of Jesus Christ is held and kept by Grace and Love
She’s made alive through Jesus’ death and washed by Jesus’ blood
She’s called to live her life in Christ and die as Jesus died
The Word of God Creation works and gives the Church her life
The Word proclaimed, the Word as known, enlivens her to grow
She studies what her King has said, Berean Christans all
Submitting to her Holy King, her one and holy Head
She worships Christ, her Risen Lord, believing what He said
As pastors preach and tell the Word, to preaching Christ they’re held
They dare not go beyond the scope provided by the Word
Proclaimers are provided by our Lord for Christian’s good
Yet they are held, submitting to, our Savior and our Lord
I often wonder why I want to preach the Word of God
Such danger is within the role, a journey rough to trod
Yet I’m compelled to stay the course until His will is known
Lord give me strength to know Your Truth to someday preach Your Son
#SBFCSW “A Critique of Contemporary Models of Preaching”, Pastor Tom Ascol
Sep 25th
Ascol on the Difficulty of Church Discipline
Jul 9th
There is no easy way to lead a church to understand, embrace and practice church discipline. It is hard work and pastors must not allow themselves to become paralyzed by the myth that “there’s got to be an easier way.” There isn’t. If we are going to be faithful shepherds then we must roll up our sleeves, dig in our heels and do the hard work of lovingly, prayerfully and persistently leading our churches to obey Christ at this point. It is not easy, but it is worth it because God will be glorified, the church will be strengthened in holiness and mission and individual believers will be helped. … Many of the good things in ministry occur over long periods of time. Though God may well lead a pastor not to spend the better part of his life in one church, there are wonderful blessings that come from doing so. - Tom Ascol (http://www.founders.org/blog/2009/07/long-journey-in-church-discipline-pt-3.html)
Irish Proverbs – Of Unity and Strength
Jun 4th
“Ni ceart go cur le cheile” – “There is no strength without unity”
There is a scene in Pixar’s “A Bug’s Life” where the evil villains, the Grasshoppers, are chilling under their sombrero hangout when Hopper, the gang’s ringleader, hears grumbling about going back to Ant Island to gather “The Offering” from the puny ants. Hopper jumps over to the bar in typical grasshopper fashion, grabs a seed from their large seed dispenser at the Grasshopper bar and throws it at the complaining party. He asks the guilty one if it hurt (it did not), throws another seed (“are you kidding” being the response) and then releases the whole bunch of heavy seeds onto the whiner, crushing him. The moral of this story? “There was that ant who stood up to me … if one ant stands up, they all might stand up”.
Just as that one seed did not hurt the grasshopper, so Flick (that one brave ant) did not stand a chance alone. Yet, Hopper knew something profound: if those thousands of ants in that colony decided to stand together, as one, unified (which they finally did) then his evil reign of terror would end (which it did).
Unity is a powerful thing. One strand of string is easily broken, but if you were to twist dozens of strings together into a rope, that string would suddenly be much more difficult to break. One vote is hardly enough to swing an election (usually), but if you get a majority to vote the same way, as one unified voice, then democratic power can and does assert itself. Yet, unity is not simply about numbers. There might be thousands of soldiers fighting in a battle, but if those thousands are not fighting for a unified purpose or goal and do not fight as one, then they are easily dispatched.
Just as unity is vital for ants, strings, voters and warriors, it is so for followers of Jesus as well. We are one body, in Christ. The Church, Jesus’ Bride, is not made up of a bunch of self-autonomous parts. We are joined and knit together, a unified, redeemed Body. Yet, “unity” can be, and in our pluralisticly philosophical and cultural milieu, often is, misleading. Believers in Christ cannot be unified with those who deny the insanely radical and thoroughly exclusive nature of Christ and the Cross. Believers in Jesus cannot be unified with those who call Jesus a god but who do not ultimately bow their collective knee in abject submission to the Lamb. Believers in the very Son of God cannot be united with those who deny the everlasting Love of Jesus and Grace of God. Yet, with true believers and followers of Jesus, the Christian IS unified and this unity finds it strength not in the collective might of those unified but in the One who is the Great Unifier. This unity and strength is for His Glory and for our Good. It is not just strong, it is everlasting.
Faithfulness …
May 21st
Book Review – “Rediscovering Paul: An Introduction to His World, Letters and Theology”
May 17th
Rediscovering Paul – An Introduction to His World, Letters and Theology. By David B. Capes, Rodney Reeves and E. Randolph Richards. InterVarsity Press, 2007.
329 pages. Hardback.
“Rediscovering Paul”, a book written by David B. Capes, Rodney Reeves and E. Randolph Richards is (for the most part) a successful attempt to provide an introductory text that gives a fair overview of Paul, his writings and his theology; giving special consideration to those topics in light of Paul’s world as he lived it. (pgs. 15-16)
Particularly, the authors strive to present a Paul that in many respects runs contrary to the preconceived notions of the students whom they teach. All three are deans of respected Universities in the Bible Belt, and all combat “Western”, Americanized misguided perceptions of Paul and his letters.
These preconceived notions of Paul (presumably the notions of the authors’ students) are at the forefront of the authors’ minds as they explore who Paul really was. For instance, one of the authors states that as he thought about who Paul was, he “…began to question if my Western, domesticated, middle-class perception of Paul was the real Paul. Had my culture superimposed its values over the biblical Paul? (p. 14)”. In some respects, this statement smacks of the same tired critiques of “the West” that have recently been offered up by those in the Emergent Movement. Yet perhaps such critiques are needed, especially those directed at church-goers.
It must be said that all three of the authors are obviously well-read and well-studied. To their credit, they have learned the ideas and writings of men throughout church history whom they disagree with, yet they present the material in a fair and thoughtful way. In the chapter entitled “Paul’s Conversion, Call and Chronology”, the authors give a substantial amount of thought and ink to dealing with the “New Perspective on Paul” contention that Paul’s “conversion” was not along the lines of the traditional Lutheran type of salvific conversion, but rather it was more along the lines of a re-focusing of his “Jewishness” to include the Gentiles as well. While the authors seem to disagree with the “New Perspective”, they do so in a balanced and somewhat refreshing way (pgs. 90-94).
Additionally, the authors do a fair job of defending the primary issues of Christian Orthodoxy. In defending the creation of the Canon, they state that “Sometimes it is necessary to question the ‘establishment,’ as Martin Luther did; however, the verdict even on Luther’s actions was determined by the church over an extended period of time. (p. 293)”. They perceptively ask the rhetorical question: “Why do we think we have the right to question a decision accepted by millions of Christians worldwide over two thousand years? (p. 293)”. While the authors are not shy about asking some hard questions of themselves, their students and their readers, they do well to not go too far and leave the walls of Orthodoxy itself.
Yet, “Rediscovering Paul” is not without its weaknesses. While the authors aimed to have a “…finished product that was relatively seamless, speaking with one voice while still drawing on the expertise of each author (p. 16)”, the book does not read as seamlessly as the authors would have liked. In the discussion on the book of Romans, much effort is given to explaining chapters one through eleven, yet chapters twelve through sixteen, the “application” part of Romans, is only given a terse two page summary. This abruptness is somewhat disconcerting, especially when viewed in concert with the long (and somewhat tedious) discussion regarding letter writing in Paul’s day (pgs. 54-82).
While many will find things in this book that will challenge them, make them uncomfortable and perhaps even anger them; the authors deal with the question of who Paul was with a necessary honesty and openness that their students and their readers would do well to follow.
Thoughts on Biblically Living and Serving Incarnationally, Part 4
May 4th
My previous posts in this series are below: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 I finished Part 3 in this series with a basic question: how is this missions model incarnational? To explain, the normal and traditional way of doing missions (at least according to this model) is shown below:
Usually, the missionary is trained and mentored in the sending context and sent out into the rest of the world to evangelize, and for the church-planter, to plant churches. But, what if the model took on this shape:
Notice in what context the whole model exists. Within this model the missionaries leave their home churches, go to their mission field and serve, are trained, are sent and plant planting churches within the indigenous context.
As many have noted, the number of “unreached” people groups have been dropping precipitously. This is a wonderful development and we should thank God for it. But, we dare not forget the scores of lost men who remain in groups that have been “reached”. We are called by God to make disciples among all the nations and all of the people groups, not just among those who are unreached. A direct (and obvious) corollary of the reality of there being fewer unreached people groups is the reality of there being more reached people groups. Because of this reality, there are more indigenous churches to serve in, to be trained in, and to be sent by to plant more indigenous, Bible believing, Gospel-Saturated planting churches.
Consider what a profound example of incarnational humility this can be. If you are a man called of God to someday pastor, it will be a great statement of trust in Christ and submission to others to, in faith, immerse yourself in another culture and serve in a local church in that culture.
You then are trained by “indigenous” pastors and are sent by indigenous churches to plant indigenous churches that themselves plant indigenous churches that plant indigenous (or glory be to God, foreign) churches. You’ll more fully learn how to live with people of another culture. You’ll more fully learn how they think, how they live, how they worship and how they serve. You’ll be trained by men who know their culture, to serve others in that culture. You allow and encourage the indigenous church to take ownership and responsibility to plant indigenous churches that otherwise would have been planted by your home-culture church. Is this not a wonderful example of Christian unity? Is this not a wonderful example of the Biblical diversity that is found in the love of Christ? Is this not a profound declaration of the priority of our Heavenly Citizenship over the citizenship of our native land?
What are the full implication and ramifications of this model? Honestly, I have no way of knowing. I would pray that it would foster a passion for the glory of Christ in our unity as children of the Father. I pray it would encourage humility and discourage the arrogance that is found all too often in the saints. I pray that it would encourage us to preach Christ to all peoples. We must remember that every generation presents us with a new crop of souls to be harvested. May we ever submit to the Will of God and seek his glory, by the Son’s Grace and through the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
Thoughts on Biblically Living and Serving Incarnationally, Part 3
May 1st
In review, here is the suggested model for living and serving incarnationally in missionary church planting.

In Scripture (1 Peter 3:8-9, Ephesians 4:1-6) Christians are called to submit to and live in deference one to another. In Hebrews 13:17 Christians are called to submit to their leadership (within Christian mutual submission). Being a churchman can and should be a very humbling experience. As much as the human being desires absolute autonomy, the simple truth is that in Christ we are unified to each other. In Christ we are to submit to one another with humble selflessness, giving deference to each other. If a man cannot do this in a local church, how can he have any reasonable expectation of asking men and women to follow his leadership as an undershepherd? How can a pastor hope to lead like Christ unless he can first be led? There is so much emphasis in evangelicalism on being a good leader that many people forget that in order to be a Christ-like servant-leader you must be a Christ-like servant-follower. Pastors are servants, under-shepherds, slaves and messenger boys, called of God to minister to Christ’s Body.
It is within this context that certain men are called out of the body of believers into roles of leadership. Yet, this does not necessarily happen instantaneously. In the examples of Barnabus and his protégé Paul, and then in Paul and his protégés Timothy and Titus, there is a very strong element of pastoral mentoring that occurs.
In this modern era of Christianity, most of the heart of pastoral training is expected to be completed at a seminary. There is on the job training that happens, as with any job, but usually, to be a pastor means that one must go to seminary, get a degree of some kind, and then wait for one’s resume to be picked up by a church somewhere who will then call the candidate in question and examine him. Where is the ownership in the local church for a man’s training and development in such a system? Seminaries are not bad institutions. There is a lot of good that come out of seminaries, as well as bad. The problem comes when the local church abdicates her responsibility and ability to train her own pastors, missionaries and missionary church planters by farming out the work to the plethora of available para-church organizations and denominational institutions.
Once the pastors or missionaries or missionary church planters are trained and ready, who sends them? Should the local church rely solely on Missions agencies and church planting networks to send their men and women to the field? I think the example of the Holy Spirit through the Church in Antioch is a hearty no! It was the local church in Antioch that sent Barnabas and Paul. The local church must send out her own! This duty, calling and privilege is not the purview of the missions agency or the denomination. Are missions agencies or denominational missions wings bad? Again, not necessarily. Problems arise when local churches renege on their responsibilities. The church must train her people and she must take ownership of her calling before God to send them out among the nations.
Finally, as men and women are sent around the world to spread the good news of the Gospel, it must be done within the realm of planting churches that plant churches. Thus we see the organic nature of the Church: by God’s Grace, in Christ and through the Spirit’s power, churches reproduce. Interestingly enough, the three previous elements of this model happen at this point. One the one hand serving, teaching/learning and sending comes into play with this fourth element; but at the same time, the planted church is learning how to serve, teach/learn and send. In order for a church to be able to plant churches there should be a corporately similar trajectory of growth for the church as their should have been for the missionary church planter.
There are two additional aspects of this model that should be explained.
First, each subsequent element of the model is within the context of the previous element. Every Christian should be a part of a local church, that’s the large context of the model. Yet not everyone will be mentored to be a pastor/church planter. Even fewer will actually become pastors and even fewer will actually become church planters. Of the church planters and the churches that will be planted, even fewer churches will be planted that actually go out themselves to plant churches.
Secondly, every subsequent element of the model envelopes a larger and larger focus. For the first element, the focus is within the local church. As mentorship progresses to being sent the focus grows, finally culminating with an ever-expanding reality of planted churches planting churches for the purpose of worshiping God and evangelizing and discipling of all the peoples in all the lands throughout all the world.
A potentially obvious question is perhaps apparent. How is this incarnational? I’ll answer that with the last and final post.
