What difference would it make if we recognize that Proverbs 31 was written for a young man, not a woman? Quite a bit actually.
Honestly I had never thought about it until I saw a video of Rick White at Acts 29.
While not an exhaustive study of the passage, Rick offers a legitimate perspective. And he makes a good point that all of us men – not just pastors -would be wse to consider.
If, as most Christians profess, Jesus is indeed the only Head of the Church, it seems reasonable that Christ’s Church should reflect His personality in it’s ministries and structure.
One way that Jesus is reflected in the ministry of faithful churches has been the recovery of a balanced Word & Deed holistic ministry. By balanced I am in no way suggesting a compromise. Instead I am referring to churches that are uncompromising BOTH in their pursuit of sound Biblical and theological instruction AND in thier practice of meeting the real – spiritual and tangible – needs of their neighbors.
This only makes sense, since Jesus is himself the Word Incarnated and the one who “came to serve, not to be served”. (See Mark 10.45) Jesus’ service was expressed through miraculous practical, provision and help. And Jesus is the one who said to his disciples: “Just as the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” (See John 20.21) Traditionally churches have structured their leadership into the offices of Elder and Deacon, in accord with Biblical directive, to reflect Word & Deed. (Elders = Word; Deacons = Deed)
But I am increasingly becoming convinced that there is another, an additional, way that the personality of Jesus should be expressed in the Church. This additional way, often referrred to as Tri-Perspectivalism or Multi-Perspectivalism, should be expressed in the Leadership Structure and in the ministry of the church. In fact, I am convinced that it needs to be the guage by which we evaluate the faithfulness of our congregations.
The Bible teaches that Jesus exercised three distinct offices:
Each of these offices carry a significance. In exercising these three offices Jesus also reveals aspects of his personality.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism summarizes for us how Jesus exercised each of these offices:
Q. 24. As a Prophet, Christ reveals the Will of God to us for our salvation by His Word and Spirit.
Q. 25. As a Priest, Christ offered himself up once as a sacrifice for us to satisfy divine justice and to reconcile us to God; and He continually intercedes for us.
Q. 26. As a King, Christ brings us under His power, rules and defends us, and restrains and conquers all his and our enemies.
Another way of looking at these distinct roles is:
Prophet is concerned with understanding and communicating God’s Truth, and applying it to every aspect of life.
Priest is concerned with the Spiritual Renewal and Transformation of all Christ’s People. The Priest is concerned not only for the conversion and intial reconcilation of the Believer to God, but also that all our lives be increasingly lived out in the joy and freedom that the Gospel secures and applies to us.
King is concerned with the advancement of Christ’s Kingdom, with both the Future fulfillment and Present Realities in mind. In that sense, the King is concerned about both the mission and the structures of his Church.
What I have discovered is that each of these offices offers a unique perspective for leadership and ministry. Each is equally important. Each must be equally considered. If all three are not equally considered the ministry of the church is unbalanced. In fact, if all three aspects, or perspectives, are not equally considered the ministry is not only unbalanced it is unfaithful. It is not faithful to reflect the whole person of Christ, who is not only the Head but also the Model. Continue reading
Who knows where such nonsense gets started? But whoever it was that first suggested Tim Tebow’s throwing flaws are the fault of Florida Coach Urban Meyer is, to say it kindly, misguided.
It was reported that, at a recent press conference, Tebow explained he had a lot of work to do and acknowledged that his years at Florida had not prepared him for the NFL. Some quickly took Tebow’s words as a slap at Coach Meyer, or at least that Tebow’s words reveal that he had somehow been slighted by Meyer.
Pundits suggested Tebow flaws provide recruiting fodder for Alabama’s Nick Saban.
It is reasoned, if Florida did not get Tebow NFL ready who could they get ready? Then, adding the fact that Tebow’s highly touted predecessor, Chris Leak, failed to make an NFL roster after his college career, these self acclaimed experts point the finger at Florida’s spread offense, and declare that Urban Meyer’s system is to blame. And thus, if Meyer can’t prepare QB’s, even of the calibur of Tebow & Leak, for the NFL, why should any prospect who has aspirations of playing on Sundays even consider Florida, if he has the opportunity to play elsewhere – especially, say, Alabama?
I agree with sportswriter Mike Bianchi who says: “It is not Urban Meyer’s Job to Make Tim Tebow NFL-Ready“. Bianchi makes a good case, but I would g even further.
I don’t know if Tebow will make himself into an NFL star or not. But fortunately Tebow know that the NFL is not the real measure of success in life.
Second, those who are blaming Meyer have no idea what it takes to be an NFL QB. They seem to assume that good coaches can just crank them out. Or maybe they just grow on trees. But the truth is that there are many, many reasons that some great college QB’s never cut it in the NFL, while other merely adequate college QB’s thrive. (See Tom Brady for example.)
Finally, while I have my doubts that Nick Saban is involved in this stuff at all, I would suggest he – and any coach – look at his own legacy before he take aim at Urban Meyer. Who was the last successful QB Alabama sent to the NFL? Richard Todd? How about Saban himself? Did any of his LSU QB’s shine at the next level? I’d hate to claim that I can make a kid into the next Jamarcus Russell, if I were Saban. That’s a sure way to get a kid to go elsewhere.
There is an ancient rule among the Benedictines:
“Let every guest who arrives be received like Christ. For He is going to say, ‘I came as a guest and you received me’.”
This would be a good concept for all churches to remember and instill.
Unlike most churches in our country, the church I have the privilege to pastor frequently and regularly has new visitors. But like most churches, we have much to learn before we could claim that the Rule of Benedict is an accurate description of our congregational practice.
I am confident some would feel it is true of us already. I have never been part of a church that better demonstrates a love for one another than Walnut Hill Church does. And that love is frequently extended to our guests. That’s why many of them are now part of the family.
But I also suspect that there are others, for whatever reasons, who have come and gone without necessarily having experienced the same thing. While it is obvious that we will never get to the point where we will keep everyone, I am concerned about those who do not stick because they did not feel loved, or perhaps even welcomed.
Studies indicate that the typical church needs to keep 16% of first-time guests in order to have a growth rate that roughly keeps pace with the annual national birth rate. Churches that are growing and healthy generally see a 25-30% rate of assimilation/integration of those who visit. (By the way, on average, 85% of guests who return the following week generally join with that church.)
Gary McIntosh, in his book, Beyond the First Visit, offers seven suggestions about how church members can move beyond being friendly to becomming great hosts:
Let me suggest that these suggestions be adopted by individual church members. Don’t try to program this as much as cultivate it. There is no need to wait for the pastor, or some formal committee, to be hospitable.
If Jesus could rise from the dead, we can at least rise from our bed, get off our couches and pews, and respond to the Lord’s resurrection life within us, joining Jesus in what he’s up to in the world. We call on others to join us—not in removing ourselves from planet Earth, but to plant our feet more firmly on the Earth while our spirits soar in the heavens of God’s pleasure and purpose. We are not of this world, but we live in this world for the Lord’s rights and interests. We, collectively, as the ekklesia of God, are Christ in and to this world.
-Leonard Sweet & Frank Viola, from A Jesus Manifesto
By Steve Wilmoth – TriCitiesSports.com
With a head coach and three assistants with ties to the Northeast Tennessee area, Brevard College has made serious in-roads acquiring local talent for their 2010 football recruiting class.
The latest is Sullivan Central wide receiver/defensive back, Andrew Griffith, who inked with the Tornados in ceremonies at school on Friday.
Griffith joins Sullivan North place-kicker Arrick Blevins, Daniel Boone lineman Isaac Bowman, and Science Hill lineman Joel Shrum as local signees with Brevard. Like Blevins, Griffith said Brevard came on strong late in the recruiting process.
“I really wasn’t considering them at first, but I went for a visit and I just kept getting more and more interested,” said Griffith.
Griffith was recruited by Marshall Doss, a former player at Emory & Henry. In addition to Doss, Brevard has on staff former ETSU lineman Jim Beverly and defensive backs coach Teddy Gaines, a former player at Dobyns-Bennett and the University of Tennessee. All are under the direction of former ETSU head coach Paul Hamilton.
“He thinks I can come right in and contribute,” said Griffith of Doss who recruited the former Cougar as a wide receiver. “Hopefully I can make an immediate impact.”
Griffith came to Central as sophomore transfer from Pennsylvania and was also considering Geneva College, close to his former Pittsburgh home, Emory & Henry and University of the Cumberlands were also in the picture.
“Since Brevard was a Division II school, I chose them,” added Griffith. “I just decided I would rather play Division II than Division III.”
Griffith has plans to major in elementary education while at Brevard.
***
This article first appeared in Tri-Cities Sports.com on February 20. Tri Cities Sports.com is a subscripton based publication that covers colege, high school and middle school sports around the Mountain Empire. This article is published here in whole with thank to Steve Wilmoth. Links have been added.
According to Thom Rainer, your unchurched neighbors are not all alike. At least that is what the research from Rainer Group indicates.
In his book, The Unchurched Next Door, Rainer puts the unchurched in our lives into five distinct categories:
U1 – Highly receptive to the Gospel. In fact this group includes some who may well be Christians who, for one reason or another, are not presently part of any expression of the Visible Body of Christ. These folks are the very essence of the word Seekers.
U2 – Receptive to the Gospel and to the Church. They may even see the church as a value, and admit that they “ought to go to church”. However, they probably have not been to church, nor taken any initiative in finding a church, and finding a church is not on thier immediate agenda whatsoever.
U3 – Neutral about church and spiritual things. They show neither signs of interest nor opposition. They may be open to some conversations about spiritual things but they do not feel their lives are lacking without Jesus being in their lives or their lack of involvement in the life of a local church.
U4 – Resistant to the Gospel, but show no antagonistic attitudes about those who profess faith and/or who go to church.
U5 – Highly antagonistic about church and the Gospel.
At first thought one might assume this is a matter of common sense, if not common knowledge. What difference does it make to consider these categories?
Those were some of my initial musings.
But then I began to think about how I, and how others I know, relate to unchurched friends and neighbors. Am I conscious of where they are on their spiritual pilgrimmage, of do I functionally lump them all into the category of “THEM” as opposed to “US”? Do I wish they would come to church, or do I understand where they are coming from? Am I willing to converse with them at their interest level, or do I use a half-hearted one-size-fits-all approach when spiritual matters come up? Like most Christians I know, I have often been guilty of the all the wrong things.
While being careful not to judge people, I have found that applying Rainers insights has made interacting and relating with unchurched neighbors and friends has become more enjoyable. Probably for them too. I listen more attentively to what they are saying. I converse more freely. I say fewer dumb things that lead to alienation. In short, I think Rainers categories are not only on-target but practically helpful.
Interestingly, The Rainer Group study has shown that 75-80% of our unchurched neighbors and friends would be open to an invitation to go to church if invited by a Christian friend. This does not mean that all of them would be equally excited about the invitation. And this does not mean that if you ask four people to come to church this week that you will see three of them there on Sunday. It means that if genuinely and sensitvely invited most would at some time or another be willing to go with you to your church.
So now here is the probing question for you & me: When was the last time you invited an un-churched person to church?
We in the churches are agonizing over ways to reach the un-churched, yet research indicates a simple invitation may be the most “cutting edge” approach we can employ.
Working through the Sermon on the Mount on Sunday mornings, a few weeks ago I preached from Matthew 5.13-16, the Salt & Light passage. What I explained to our congregation is that, after instrucitng us about what our attitude ought to be as citizens of the Kingdom, Jesus goes on to reveal the Influence he expects his people to have on the communites where we live, and on the world around us.
In this video Tim Keller offers his thoughts about being Salt & Light.
It sounds like a contradiction, doesn’t it? The Gospel saves you from morality. Can this be true?
It is true. And it is an important truth. And understanding what John Piper is saying in this video can free people from the crushing weight of trying to be good. For others it will free them from self-righteousness, which is a cancer that eats away at the spiritual sensitivity system.
“When I look at the cross, I learn to say: ‘The Son of God loved me, and gave Himself for me’ (Galatians 2:20). I begin to believe with Paul that if God did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up to the cross for me, then He loves me so much He will always give me only what will bring me blessing (Romans 8:32).”
In a post yeaterday I offered my musing about Sanctity of Life Sunday. In my reading I also stumbled upon something by Russell Moore, Dean and Vice President at Southern Seminary in Lousville, on his blog, Moore to the Point. I found his post: Why I Hate Sanctity of Life Sunday to be simple, insightful, and sensitive.
How can I commend a guy who “hates” Sanctity of Life Sunday, when I just finished writing about it with a positive perspective? Well, you’ll have to check out Dr. Moore’s post to find out.
Like many conservative Evangelical congregations around the country, our church recognized yesterday as Sanctity of Life Sunday. It seems only appropriate. We live in a culture that no longer values human life, except, perhaps, as a disposable comodity. This is evident by not only the continued tragedy of abortion but also the growing, or at least high, percentage of Americans who are OK with euthenasia. But we value life, because God values life.
Like other Evangelicals, we believe that life – human life – is a reflection of the glory of God. Humanity, and humanity alone, was created by God to bear His image. Though vandalized in the Fall, and tarnished by our own sin, all people contine to posess an inherent value because we are still bearers of the image of God, even under all the rubbage.
One of the things I mentioned to our congregation is that there are several ways to obsereve Sanctity of Life Sunday. The most common, I suspect, is to show support for being Pro Life and opposed to abortion. Like many others, we partner with the local crisis pregnancey center (which, in our case here in Bristol, is led by a man who preceded me as pastor of Walnut Hill Church). I also mentioned that adoption is a very important practice. More than that, adoption is a beautiful illustration of the Gospel. (I’ll compose another post to explain that, perhaps tomorrow.) Another related practice is Foster Care, which is in critical condition here in Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Perhaps I’ll draft yet another post about this issue, either this week or next.)
But back to the most traditional emphasis connected to the observation of Sanctity of Life Sunday. It strikes me that there are two ways we can go with our observation of this day:
These are related. And both can be accomplished. But it seems to me the emphasis always leans toward one of these options or the other.
For me personally, I am glad to be part of a church that focuses on the celebration of Life. The recent tradtion at our church is to launch a competition between the men and women to see which group/gender can fill the most baby bottles with coins during the time between Sanctity of Life Sunday and Mother’s Day. All the money collected goes to the AACPC here in Bristol. It is a fun and postitive tradition that focuses on serving those in need more than decrying what we hate. (Though, I do hate the practice of abortion.)
What you will not see at a church that I pastor is a yard full of crosses on Sanctity of Life Sunday – nor during any other time of year. I am not levying accusations at those who do this each year. There is a place for protest, and I suspect that there are people who are reminded about how monstrously large the abortion industry is in this country. But my preference, and my position, is that it is better to celebrate and serve LIFE.
There is a practical, and compassionate, reason for my position.
I often wonder about the message being sent to the women who have chosen to have an abortion – and to a lesser degree, the men who were complicit in that decision. I wonder what they perceive of the love of Christ for people like them, people labeled “murderers” by the most vociferous anti-abortion activists. In our churches, and in our pregnancy centers, we caution women considering an abortion that someday down the road they are very likely to feel a high degree of guilt should they decide to terminate their pre-born child’s life. Reasearch and experiece has proven that to be the truth. And it is women (and men) like that I wonder about. When they see the crosses covering a church yard, representing the millions of children whose lives are taken each year, including the life their decision ended, what message do they infer the church is sending them? I am afraid that the message hurting women receive – whether or not it is the message intended to be implied – is: “We told you so.” Or worse: “We hate people like you (people who kill innocent children).”
I wonder how inclined a woman, feeling the weight of a decision she cannot retract, would be to seek counselling for her grief from a church that has marked her sin with a Scarlet Letter “A” – for Abortion – in the form of a garden of crosses out on the lawn. I wonder if these women drive by and sense the love of Jesus flowing from such an expression of the Body of Christ. I am sure many have received help, forgiveness, and hope through these congregations. But I ask myself, “How many more women drive-by fearing they will never be forgiven or accepted in such a place?”
Again, I am not indicting those churches, nor those Christians, who choose to observe Sanctity of Life in this way. There is a place for advocacy on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves (in this case, the unborn). What I write here in this post are only my thoughts and concerns. But they are real thoughts and real concerns, deeply held. And for those reasons, whatever others do on this day each year, I will CHOOSE to CELEBRATE LIFE!
According to Peter Wagner:
Healthy churches build an immune system to resist disease. It is much more advisable to prevent an illness than to contract one and then have to cure it.
The following are the most common diseases that infect churches. By recognizing some of the symptoms my hope is that we will turn to the Great Physician, the Gentle Healer, and seek necessary medical attention.
I am using Wagner’s terms here, and have added my own commentary:
Ethnikitis
Ethnikitis is fear or disregard for others of different ethnicities and/or races. This disease is caused by contextual factors, usually revolving around a static church (in-grown and non-growing) in an ethnically transitioning neighborhood.
Ghost-Town Disease
Another contextual illness, this illness is found in communities where old residents are moving out, and no one is moving in.
People-Blindness
This malady is directly related to a lack of understanding of the significant differences between diverse people groups within the community. It occurs when churches fail to consider how those differences may impede evangelism efforts.
Hyper-Cooperativism
Wagner says: “When everyone is responsible for evangelism, no one is responsible for evangelism. Local-church evangelism is much more effective than city-wide cooperative efforts.”
This malady occurs when local congregations loose their distinct identity because the church is too committed to being part of something else. There is nothing wrong with partnering and cooperative ministries. But if the only ministry a church does is under the umbrella of others, and the church does not bring any distinct character to the joint-effort, it may be a sign that the church is not healthy.
The healthy alternative is not to forgo all partnerships and joint efforts, through isolationism or competition. Instead each church should develop its own distinct personality which it can then contribute to the community and cooperative efforts.
Koinonitis
Koinonia is the Greek word for fellowship. Koinonitis occurs when interpersonal relationships within the church become so deep and mutually absorbing that we ignore the needs of the community and world around us. When Koinonitis is present church programs tend to become centripetal rather than centrifugal; entirely attractional rather than missional and incarnational.
Sociological Strangulation
Wagner says: “This is a slowdown in the rate of church growth caused when the flow of people into a church begins to exceed the capacity of the facilities to accommodate it.”
In other words, this occurs when the building and sanctuary are too small to accomodate more people. The general rule here, in suburban communities is 80% capacity = FULL. In more rural communities, where people are used to having more elbow room, the rule may be as low as 50% = FULL.
Another aspect that George Barna deals with, more than Wagner, is when growth occurs at a rate too fast to effectively assimilate new people into an existing church community. Barna suggests that healthy churches grow at a rate of no more than 10% – 15% anually. Thus, if Barna is correct, a church with a 6% or 7% growth rate may be healthier than a church that is growing at 20% rate over an extended period of time.
Arrested Spiritual Development
Wagner: “When people in the church are not growing in the things of God or in their relationships with one another, the total health of the church deteriorates, and the church cannot grow.” To this I will add, if the church did grow, it really has nothing to offer those who come, nor to the community where God placed them.
St. John’s Syndrome
When Christians become Christians in name only; feel that their faith is only routine; when church involvement is largely going through the motions, and belonging to church is nothing more than a family tradition or social nicety, St. John’s Syndrome is likely at work.
Why is this called St John’s Syndrome? I have no idea. At least I do not recall off the top of my head. But I agree that the symptoms described are unhealthy, no matter what you want to call it.
Hypo-pneumia
Hypo-pneumia is a condition caused by a subnormal level of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the life and ministry of the church. This is a church that depends upon talent of the members and the resources on hand. It is a church that may pray, but is not depending upon prayer.
It is this type of church Francis Schaeffer had in mind when he asked his wife what she thought would happen if the Holy Spirit departed from the local church. Their joint conclusion was that in the vast majority of churches nothing would change, and few people would notice.
GRACE & PEACE 