Church

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

boxing-baby

Jeff Purswell writes:

Who dreamed that their church participation was so significant? Giving the world a glimpse of the consummated kingdom of God!

Does such a grand vision govern our attitude toward our local churches?  If it does, our participation will no doubt reflect it.  We will love, serve, sacrifice, forgive, forbear, employ our gifts, mortify our pride – all that we might together “display in this present evil age the life and fellowship of the Age to come.” 

Churches that display such a life, however imperfectly, are God’s most potent intstruments in his cosmic program to reclaim and restore his creation.

At first glance this may not seem to be all that interesting of a paragraph.  But it is far more than a poetic ode to the Church and what the Church ought to be.

I think it safe to say that most of us desire peace in our churches.  We want to get along with everyone. We want everyone to think well of us.  That is, afterall, what the church is supposed to be like.  Unfortunately, it is not the reality experienced all the time in any church.

When we find ourselves in the middle of tensions or conflict, or even if we are simply on the perifery observing it between friends and fellow church members, it can cause an agonizing feeling.  We know this is not the way things ought to be. We think, “God cannot be glorified in this.”

While God is not glorified by church conflict, notice two of the words in the above paragraph: forgive and forbear.  These are important words to think about.  While both are noble words, they would not exist apart from some sort of tension or conflict.

What Jeff seems to be suggesting is that while peace & unity are marks of Christ’s Church, the real life struggles of living, breathing, sin-infected people that make up the membership of the church almost guarantees that from time to time we will rub one another the wrong way.  Yet if we are a people, marked by the gospel, committed to reconciliation through the practices of forbearing and forgiving one another, even the presence of conflict within a congregation provides opportunity to glorify God.

Radical Reformission

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

under-the-half-moon

Long ago I shamelessly pilferred the word “Reformissional” from Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church and Acts 29 Network.  The word seemed to encapsulate what I was about.  The word is a hybrid of both Reformed and Missional, two parallel tracks that both decribe and shape my philosophy of ministry – and even, to a large degree, my philopsophy of life. 

It was sometime later that it dawned on me that the word Reformation was also part of this equation. That, too, was an important discovery.  By Reformation I am not just referring to a point in time and history, but also the goal of my mission and life. I long to see a new reformation take place in my church, my community, and across this nation.  I long to see it spread throughout the world.  I am in regular need of one in my own life.

Now, when I say such things, I understand that there are many who may become reasonably uncomfortable. It is easy to misunderstand my hope and intent, and perhaps conjure up mental images of a time when people lived under religious oppression.  Afterall, many of our history books seem to suggest that this was the inevitable outcome resulting from the Reformation of the 16th Century.  But what I have in mind should evoke no such horrid.  (Besides, many of our history books are woefully in error about the Reformation, and especially the Puritan outgrowth of it.  But that is a topic for some other day.)

What I have in mind, when I say I long for a new reformation, is that I desire to see our churches constantly reshaping themselves to become more in accord with what the Scripture says they ought be. And corresponding to that, that the lives of Believers would be shaped and formed more and more by Christ, and less and less by culture, or tradition, or by anything else.  Rather than being oppressive, I belive that would be liberating. 

In his book, Radical Reformission, Mark Driscoll shares some keen insights.  I don’t embrace all of Driscoll’s views, but I did appreciate the book.  In particular, I felt the Introduction offers some important ideas that could stand alone as a challenging essay for todays churches, church leaders, and Christians.  For that reason, I am posting the following edited version of that Intro:

 

Since the mid-1990s, the conversation among young pastors has evolved from reaching Generation X, to ministering in a postmodern culture, to a more mature and profitable investigation of what a movement of missionaries would look like, missionaries sent not from America to another nation but from America to America. This “reformission” is a radical call to reform the church’s traditionally flawed view of missions as something carried out only in foreign lands and to focus instead on the urgent need in our own neighborhoods, which are filled with diverse cultures of Americans who desperately need the gospel of Jesus and life in his church. Most significant, they need a gospel and a church that are faithful both to the scriptural texts and to the cultural contexts of America. The timing of this reformission is critical. George Barna has said, “The first and most important statistic is that there are a lot of Americans who don’t go to church—and their numbers are increasing. The figure has jumped from just 21 percent of the population in 1991 to 33 percent today. In fact, if all the unchurched people in the U.S. were to establish their own country, they would form the eleventh most populated nation on the planet.”

What I am advocating is not an abandonment of missions across the globe but rather an emphasis on missions that begin across the street, like Jesus commanded (Acts 1:8).

Meanwhile, the churches in our neighborhoods may be more akin to museums memorializing a yesterday when God showed up in glory to transform people, than to the pivot points of a movement working to reform the culture of the present day. Reformission requires that we all learn the principles handed down to us from mentors who are seasoned cross-cultural missionary pioneers, such as Lesslie Newbigin, Hudson Taylor, and Roland Allen. These missionaries are most adept at helping us to cross from our church subcultures into the dominant cultures that surround us. Subsequently, at the heart of reformission are clear distinctions between the gospel, the culture, and the church.

First, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the heart of the Scriptures.  To put it succinctly, Paul said that the gospel is of primary importance and consists of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection to save sinners, in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-8).

Second, we have the various cultures in which people live their lives (for example, ancient Jews and Gentiles; modern, urban homosexual artists; modern, rural heterosexual farmers). Our lives shape, and are shaped by, the culture we live in, and the gospel must be fitted to (not altered for) particular people, times, and circumstances so that evangelism will be effective.

Third, we have the church, or the gathering of God’s people— which includes those who are not Christians (Matt. 13:24-30) — where people are built up in their faith and knitted together in loving community. They can then faithfully engage those in the culture with the gospel, while experiencing its transforming power in their own lives.

Reformission is a radical call for Christians and Christian churches to recommit to living and speaking the gospel, and to doing so regardless of the pressures to compromise the truth of the gospel or to conceal its power within the safety of the church. The goal of reformission is to continually unleash the gospel to do its work of reforming dominant cultures and church subcultures.

Reformission therefore begins with a simple return to Jesus, who by grace saves us and sends us into mission. Jesus has called us to (1) the gospel (loving our Lord), (2) the culture (loving our neighbor), and (3) the church (loving our brother). But one of the causes of our failure to fulfill our mission in the American church is that the various Christian traditions are faithful on only one or two of these counts. When we fail to love our Lord, neighbor, and brother simultaneously, we bury our mission in one of three holes: the parachurch, liberalism, or fundamentalism.

Gospel + Culture – Church = Parachurch

First, many Christians become so frustrated with the church that they try to bring the gospel into the culture without it. This is commonly referred to as the parachurch, which includes evangelistic ministries such as Young Life and Campus Crusade for Christ. The success of these ministries is due in large part to their involvement in culture and in loving people, whereas the church often functions as an irrelevant subculture. But the failure of such ministries is that they are often disconnected from the local church, connecting unchurched people to Jesus without connecting them to the rest of Jesus’ people. This can lead to theological immaturity. Once someone is saved, he or she is encouraged to do little more than get other people saved.

Also, since parachurch ministries are often age-specific, they lack the benefits of a church culture in which all generations are integrated to help people navigate the transitions of life. This further separates families from each other if mom, dad, and kids are each involved in disconnected life-stage ministries outside of their church, rather than in integrated ministries within it.

The parachurch tends to love the Lord and love its neighbors, but not to love its brothers.

Culture + Church – Gospel = Liberalism

Second, some churches are so concerned with being culturally relevant that, though they are deeply involved in the culture, they neglect the gospel. They convert people to the church and to good works, but not to Jesus. This is classic liberal Christianity, and it exists largely in the dying mainline churches. The success of these ministries lies in that they are involved in the social and political fabric of their culture, loving people and doing good works. Their failure is that they bring to the culture a false gospel of accommodation, rather than confrontation, by seeking to bless people as they are rather than calling them to a repentant faith that transforms them. Often the motive for this is timidity because, as Paul says, the gospel is foolish and a stumbling block to the unrepentant. Liberal Christians are happy to speak of institutional sin but are reticent to speak of personal sin because they will find themselves at odds with sinners in the culture.

Liberal Christians run the risk of loving their neighbors and their brothers at the expense of loving their Lord.

Church + Gospel – Culture = Fundamentalism

Third, some churches are more into their church and its traditions, buildings, and politics than the gospel. Though they know the gospel theologically, they rarely take it out of their church. This is classic fundamentalist Christianity, which flourishes most widely in more independent-minded, Bible-believing churches. The success of these churches lies in that they love the church and often love the people in the church. Their failure is that it is debatable whether they love Jesus and lost people in the culture as much as they love their own church. Pastors at these churches are prone to speak about the needs of the church, focusing on building up its people and keeping them from sinning. These churches exist to bring other Christians in, more than to send them out into the culture with the gospel. Over time, they can become so inwardly focused that the gospel is replaced with rules, legalism, and morality supported with mere proof texts from the Bible.

Fundamentalist Christians are commonly found to love their Lord and their brothers, but not their neighbors.

Reformission is a gathering of the best aspects of each of these types of Christianity: living in the tension of being Christians and churches who are culturally liberal yet theologically conservative and who are driven by the gospel of grace to love their Lord, brothers, and neighbors.

Becoming a House of Prayer

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Jesus said:

“My house shall be called a House of Prayer for all Nations.”

It is my dream for our church, Walnut Hill Presbyterian, to become a House of Prayer.  That dream is shared by the Elders of the church, and by several members. 

Don’t get me wrong. Walnut Hill is, in many respects, a praying church.  We have a number of faithful & powerful prayer warriors among our number.  Wednesday evenings were set apart for a service of prayer long before I arrived on the scene a little over a year ago.  And each Saturday morning the Elders meet at the church at 7:30am to pray for our members and our community. (This is another practice that was already in place before I returned to Tennessee.) 

I don’t know how one would gauge such a thing, but I suspect that Walnut Hill would rank among the upper percentiles for prayer among churches in the USA.

But still, that is not what I am hoping for.  It is not the same thing.  There is a difference between a praying church and a House of Prayer. In fact, Cheryl Sacks, in her book The Prayer Saturated Church, lists several differences:

1. A church that prays may have a limited number of people involved in a prayer ministry; A House of Prayer involves the entire congregation.

2. In a praying church there may be little, or even no, regular emphasis from the pulpit about the ministry of prayer; A House of Prayer regualarly teaches and emphasizes the priority of prayer from the pulpit.

3. In a praying church very little training is offered to people to prepare them for prayer. It may be assumed that prayer is easy, and people already know how to pray.  In a House of Prayer it is recognized that prayer can be hard work, and many people feel inadequate about their prayer life. Therefore classes, seminars, and other opportunities for prayer and training in prayer are offered.

4. In a praying church it may be that only a few leaders attend prayer meetings, with no regular commitment. In a House of Prayer ALL leaders, and staff, have a burden for prayer, and have made it a priority in their lives to participate in the prayer meetings.

5. In praying churches groups or committees open with prayer as an item on the docket or agenda. In a House of Prayer groups spend time praying together, pray at regular or spontanious times throughout the meeting, and set times of prayer in addition to regular meetings. 

6. In a church that has a prayer ministry, there may still be something that is lacking in the atmosphere because prayer may be feeble. In a House of Prayer there is a fresh flowing of the presence of the Holy Spirit that permeates the atmosphere of the church. 

7. In churches that pray members have the freedom to pray; In a House of Prayer there is a natural flow of prayer going on throughout the church.

8 In a church that prays, having a ministry staff person is not recognized as a viable part of the church staff. In a House of Prayer a prayer coordinator is an essential member of the staff, and may even be a paid staff member.

These are just some of the distinctions. Some are subtle, while others are glaring, differences.  (Click to read Slacks actual and complete list: God’s Standard.)

Another difference between a church that prays and a House of Prayer is the focus and substance of the prayers offered.  Jack Miller, in his book Outgrowing the Ingrown Church, makes the distinction between two types of prayer meetings: Maintenance or Frontline. Miller confesses to having led both kinds in churches he had pastored.  I will offer more insight about what Miller says about these in another post, but here is the essence of each: 

Maintenace prayer meetings focus on perpetuating the status quo. Prayers are offered with little expectancy, and usually from the hosptial list and for some generic ‘blessing’ on the ministries and programs of the church.

Particiapnts in the Frontline prayer meetings expect to encounter God, and to be changed as a result of that encounter.  The prayers offered are specific expressions of “Thy Kingdom come. They Will be done…”  In other words, the purpose is, by God’s grace and power, to advance Christ’s Kingdom. 

There are a number of reasons why many churches are not as effecive in prayer as they might hope to be.  Chief among these reasons are probably:

1. Prayer is hard work.

2. People don’t know how to pray.

You might be surprised that I suggest people don’t know how to pray.  But you shouldn’t be.  This disciples, who were mentored by Jesus, didn’t know how. That’s why thay asked: “Lord, teach us to pray.” (Luke 11.1)   Apparently effective prayer is something that needs to be learned. It takes work.

We want to take some steps toward becoming a House of Prayer. 

Beginning Sunday October 5, Walnut Hill Church will participate in 40 Days of Prayer. During these next eight weeks we will coordinate our Sunday School classes with our morning messages; and we will encourage one another to make prayer a more focused part of our daily lives.

While effective prayer will always be hard work, to alleviate some of the practical difficulties that often hinder people from getting started we will: 1) supply church members with some tools to assist them in prayer; 2) introduce new opportunites to pray for our neighbors and community through PrayerWalking. (If this is a new concept to you, click: Practical PrayerWalking, to read a brief introduction by WayMakers.  Also click on What is PrayerWalking? and How to PrayerWalk on the WayMakers page.)  

If you are a part of the Walnut HIll family, we ask that you join us on this journey.  Whether you are part of Walnut Hill or just someone who stumbled on this page, we ask that you pray for us: that God, by his grace, and for his glory, would transform us into a House of Prayer.

Pastors & REAL People

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

My friend Nathan Lewis has written a profoundly heartfelt, insightful post titled: Why So Many Pastors Don’t Get Close to Church Members.

Nathan is an excellent writer, and has a broad spectrum of interests, so that he has written a good post is no surprise.  But the theme he dares to address treads into sensitive territory: the relationships between church members and pastors.  And this post will be beneficial to those in both categories.

It is important for pastors because he expresses the pains and vulnerabilities that all pastors – and their families – have to live with.  There is a sort of catharsis in knowing that someone understands.  While not wishing the pain on anyone else, it is nice to know you are not alone -and that it is not just you!

But I think it would also be beneficial for the average church member to read Nathan’s post, and consider his reflections.  Why? Because I don’t think most church members have any idea about this dynamic; this tension that pastors, and their families, have to live with.  I think it would be helpful if you understood.  It might answer some questions you have about the way your pastor, or former pastors, have related to you.  It might give you some insight about the psyche of your pastor and his wife.  At the very least it will help you to know how to pray for your pastor.

Like Nathan, I have always chosen to befriend instead of keeping a distance. And like Nathan I have experienced the pain of rejection that accompanies the departure of a friend.  Still, I cannot imagine functioning any other way.

Whether you are a pastor or a REAL person, take a moment to read Nathan’s post.

Tips That Change the Taste of Worship

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

  As a pastor I have come to understand that some people have difficulty concentrating throughout the Sunday message.  Sometimes it’s just me people can’t follow. But sometimes it is them.  It may be a short attentioon span, external distractions, or just the overwhelming wealth of insight being offered. (That last one is my favorite.) 

If you’ve ever found yourself to be one that occasionally experiences this problem, let me offer a few practical tips. These are far from perfect, and certainly not exhaustive, but I think they are helpful:

1. Write It Down

Many educators will tell you to write things down because it helps you focus and remember.  Often, after writing something down, you’ll find you don’t even need to go back to your notes to recall what you wrote. 

I find it interesting that in Deuteronomy 17.18 we learn that every time a new king was installed in Israel he was to write the entire Law of God out by hand. He had to write it himself. He could not delegate it to anyone else.  He could not dictate to his secretary.  But taking pen in hand, the new king had to transcribe the whole thing himself.  The expected result, we learn in v. 19, was that the new king would revere the Lord and follow the law carefully.  I suspect that what is also true, but has no need to be stated, is that the king will remember the Law. 

2. Pray It In

When you hear something that strikes you, if the Lord impresses something on you, during the course of the message, stop and pray right then.  Whether it is something that challenges you, encourages you, or even convicts you, ask the Lord to apply it to your life right then.  (This is also true during other parts of the service.  You may be struck by somethng in a hymn, or during a prayer. Pray it in.)

A church service is supposede to be more relational than academic.  The Lord promises his presence among his people.  It should be a time of interaction between you and God.  As he speaks to you, deal with it at that moment.

3. Give It Out

After you write it down and pray it in, don’t neglect to give it out. Tell someone about it. If you are married, share your insight with you spouse on the way home: “Honey, do you know what struck me today?” 

When you give it out it becomes part of your life.  Your insight may also prove benficial to the one you share it with.  And giving it out also promotes unity, a oneness, because you are opening up and sharing what God is doing in your heart and life.   

4. Move Around

No, I don’t mean you should get up in the middle of the message.  I mean, don’t always sit in the same place. 

While the first three are pretty simple, and probably will not receive much negative response, this  suggestion poses some risks. It may not only seem strange, but the very notion violates some long standing personal traditions.  I’m convinced that whole sanctuaries were built around some people – probably built while they were sitting in one particular spot! God have mercy on the visitor who sits in what he/she consider to be “MY” place.

But this suggestion is not as silly as it may at first seem. 

Studies have shown a direct correlation between academic success levels and where a student sits in the classroom. (I usually sat in the back, which probably says a lot.)  Perhpas it could also have some effect spiritually.

Now, I am not suggesting that those who sit up front are actually more spiritually mature than those in the back.  Spirituality has nothing to do with geographic location.  But there is an attitude that can creep in. Sitting in the same spot, week after week, year after year, things can become a little stale. 

Moving around every once in a while offers a new, refreshing perspective.  You see things from a different angle, which seems to stimulate the attention span. You are surrounded by different people, which not only creates a different worship environment, it is also a great way to expand unity within the church.

It’s amazing, but sitting in a different place almost makes it seem like a whole different church, regardless of the size of the sanctuary. 

So move around, and mix it up.

Mapping Out Missions in Your Church

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

It was theirs for the taking. So Moses, at God’s prompting, sent a dozen spies into the Canaan to explore the land God promised to give to Israel.  But God never promised Moses that taking the land would be easy. Canaan was filled with powerful people and fortified cities.  Ten of the spies weighed the risk and decided it wasn’t worth it. Two, however, Joshua & Caleb, were men of courage, faith, and faithfulness.  God had promised them that land. God had instructed them to take it.  “Let’s roll” they said. “We should go take posession of the land. We can do it.”  (Numbers 13)

You may be in a similar situation. You may not have thought about it this way, but that is the scenario facing everyone selcted to serve on the missions committee of thier church. 

God the Son has issued a mandate for world evangelization. (Matthew 28.18-20) He intends to claim the hearts and lives of men & women, boys & girls, from every Tribe on earth.  He has promised to supply the power. (Acts 1.8)  He has guaranteed ultimate success.  Still, the task ahead is not easy.  The faithful will experience all kinds of obstacles and opposition. And just like Joshua & Caleb, some of that opposition will come from inside the camp, from those who are commissioned to partner with you, but who are too timid to carry out the mission.  Completion will take courage, commitment, and sacrifice.  It requires faithfulness.

So yo are a Joshua or a Caleb. You are on the missions committee, and you are determined to take the lands. You are just not sure exactly how to go about it. It’s a big job. What does it entail? Where do you begin?

It is important to remember that all Christians are called to the advancement of the Gospel to all Nations. This task is not the responsibility of a select few who serve, whether you volunteered or you were appointed by their church, as a missions committee.  Missions is not one ministry among many in the church.  Mission, along with worship, is the essence of Being the church. And every church member has a role, whether they are Go-ers, Senders, and/or Mobilizers.

The task of the missions committee is to facilitate the work of global missions in the church through leadership, evaluation, administration, and delegation of the various tasks associated with cross cultural ministry.  

The following list is an overview of the roles of the mission ministry.  It takes into consideration mission ministry strengths identified by mission mobilization network ACMC, but I have consolidated them into more manageable categories.  A healthy missions ministry will include every category.  However, no church can be equally great at all possible functions within each category.

Strategy

Every church must have a clear strategy that recognizes its responsibility to participate in the completion of the Great Commission, and the specific ways it will participate to accomplish that task. Simple mission involvement, while good, is not an adequate objective. 

Strategy of the church includes: Adoption of Unreached Peoples; Sending Structures; and Partnerships with Agencies and or Nationals.

Mobilization

Mobilization is active involvement toward accomplishing the remaining task of the Great Commission.

There are various roles (i.e. Go-ers, Senders, Mobilizers), various levels of readiness, and different callings among church members.  In other words, it is rare that someone will be called and prepared for career missions without having initially taken short term mission trips. On the other hand, most who go on short term trips will never be called to career missions.  Appropriate entry and preparation levels need to be offered.  And church members should be encouraged and expected to discern his/her own role in the task of reaching the Nations. 

Mobilization means getting increasing numbers of people to actively carry out their distinct role. Mobiolization means equipping them to do so.

Mobilization includes: Short Term Cross Cultural trips; Encouraging Tent-making; Adoption of Unreached Peoples; Training Candidates; Strategic Partnerships; Prayer; and Ministry to Internationals.

Care

Missionary Care focuses on caring for the missionaries, both on the field and while at home on Home Missionary Assignment, or HMA. (NOTE: This used to be referred to as Furlough).  It also applies to caring for those who are in preparation for career mission.

This is one area I anticipate our church, Walnut Hill PCA, should excel in as we grow in our missions ministry. One of the great strengths of our church – perhaps the greatest strength – is the way the people love one another.  Missionary Care is simply an extension of that love.  And this practical love is part of our mission.  Paraphrasing Francis Schaeffer: “The way we love one another is a demonstration of the Gospel we proclaim.” (John 13.34-35) 

Practical means of Missionary Care includes: Caring for Tangible, Emotional, and Spiritual Needs; Communication with Missionaries; Holistic Prayer; Funding & Support; Visiting Missionaries on the Field.

Education

Education is teaching people about God’s heart for the Nations and about the Great Commission. It keeps people informed about what God is doing around the world. It is the reminder of the remaining task. And it is the equipping of each church member to carry out his/her particular roles.

Means of Education include: Missions Conferences/Festivals; Classes & Seminars; Publications; Hands-on Experiences;  Training & Preparation for Short-term and/or career missions.

The Scope of Missions Education should include the whole church. Intentional attention should be given to Children, and to Teens, who are preparing to make life decisions.  But most adults also benefit from missions education. 

Administration

Administration is dealing with all the behind-the-scenes details of missions, and management of this ministry.  This is an important aspect of Mobilizing.  And each of the above categories requires some level of administration.

Pertaining to the missions committee, Administration includes: Policy Development; Job Descriptions for committee members, and others who serve specific functions (i.e. Missions Conference Planner); Communications with Missionaries; Missions Budget Preparation and Management; and Vetting & Selection of Missionaries to be supported.  

The task of taking the Nations for Christ through missions may seem like a battle agianst giants.  But remember, you are not doing it alone.  If each church plays its part there will be a great army advancing the Kingdom of God’s Grace.  There are more than 600 Evangelical churches in the world for every Unreached People Group.  If every church – if even a significant minority of those churches – gears up for the task, missions experts tell us that the completion of the Great Commission can very definitely be accomplished in this generation!

Pray that God would give you the spirit of Joshua & Caleb.  They recognized the strength of their opposition and the difficult battles ahead of them.  But they also knew that God would empower them to do whatever he called them to do.

Odyssey of Church Outreach

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Outreach and evangelism are among the most important responsibilites the Christian has to his/her community. They are also perhaps the most intimidating. 

A friend of mine, who is not a pastor, took over the the outreach ministry of his church. He was aware at the outset that this ministry was in need of an ovehaul.  During the ‘heydays’ in this congregation most of the growth occured through transfers from neighboring churches experiencing turbualnt times. The church had never really cultivated a healthy outreach/evangelism ministry.  And recently this church had itself just emerged from a prolonged period of conflict. Consequently, little effort had been made in a few years to reach out to the community. Mere survival and self-preservation had been the prevailing mindset.  But the dust having settled, many in the church had been developing a renewed interest in their missional responsibility.

One of the first things my friend did was to take an informal survey of other members of the congregation.  What he found was somewhat unexpected.  Many of the members expressed a genuine willingness to reach out to the community.  This part was as he suspected.  But what surprised him was the nearly universal sense of inadequacy that the church members felt.   They would be willing – even anxious – to reach out to their neighbors.  They just didn’t think they knew how.  So they had never taken any initiative.

I don’t think this is an uncommon problem.  I remember my own experience.  As a Junior at the University of Tennessee the director of Athlete’s in Action, Doug Pollock, was mentoring me.  He suggested it was time I learned to do evangelism.  The idea of actually introducing others to a vital relationship with Jesus was exciting.  But it was also overwhelming.  Consequently I was paralyzed by the thought.  (I learned, by coercion – which I don’t recommend. Eventually, though, I faced my fears and began more freely sharing my faith – with varying effectivenss.) 

I also remember reading about the amazing beginnings of the Calvary Chapel movement. In the early days the founder of the movement, Chuck Smith, faced a congregation laced with fear of evangelism. He recognized this as a very common issue in most churches, and for most Christians. He also thought about the approach most pastors – including himself – employed to combat the paralysis: Guilt.  But as he re-diagnosed the problem a different solution came to mind.  He realized that the primary problem most people experienced was not a lack of desire, but a lack of confidence.  Guilt would not remedy this problem, only compound it.  Instead he realized that outreach needed to be modeled and taught. Smith believed that when the people grew in confidence that they would neither dishonor God nor destroy friendships in the process, evangelism would become natural and common.  And he was right! 

KEY CONCEPTS

Two key concepts to remember concerning evangelism are Intellectual and Incarnational. 

Intellectual deals with the content of the faith, an awareness of people (including ones self), and to some degree an understanding of the methods employed.  (Methods may not be the best word, because it seems to connote a formula. That is not my intention. But I’ll elaborate on methods in another post, which I hope will bring some clarity.) All of these things are important for effective evangelsim.  It will likely take the average person a little work to develop a competent grasp of these things. But while the old saying is true: “nothing worth doing is easy”, these things are not as complicated as many seem to think.

Incarnation means “in the flesh”.  It is used uniquely of the person and ministry of Christ. But it is also applies appropriately, I believe, to the followers of Christ who are commissioned to carry on his work on earth.  Jesus himself said: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” (John 20.21) 

Jesus’ statement requires us to ask oursleves: “Just how did the Father send Jesus?”  When we understand the answer to that question we have a picture of what Jesus intends for his followers, his church.  And without trying to oversimplify the doctrine of the Incarnation, we must understand that fundamentally it means the Father sent Jesus “in the flesh”. (See Philippians 2.5-8, John 1.14). Or as Eugene Peterson wonderfully puts it: “The Word became flesh and blood and moved into the neighborhood.”

While it is important to recognize that Christ is unique in his Incarnation, and that there are aspects that cannot be replicated, it is also important to recognize that he has conferred an incarnational mandate upon his followers. We are commissioned to live and proclaim our faith in our neighborhoods.  Media may provide some helpful tools in the work of evangelism, but it is no substitute for living out our faith in the midst of both other believers and non-believers.  To do what Jesus commissioned us to do, to act as Jesus acted, we must “move out into the neighborhood”. We cannot stay behind the fortress-like doors of the church and simply invite select people to visit us there.

OBSTACLES

The two “I’s” – Intellect & Incarnation – are import, inseparable, and inconvertible.  Understanding these concepts is a good start. But we also need to be aware that there are obstacles that need to be addressed if we want to experience frutiful evangelism, and have effective outreach from our churches

In the couse of subsequent posts, I  will address six common obstacles that hinder Christians, and churches, from effectively

1. Lack of Understanding of the Gospel

2. Prayerlessness

3. People Blindness

4. Outdated Methods

5. Timidity

6. Motives

A Team Approach to Effective Church Ministry

/ Dennis Griffith / 3 Comments

As a Presbyterian minister I am keenly familiar with committees.  While committees are a familiar staple in churches of almost any flavor, we Presbyterians especially like to have everything done ‘decently and in order’.  This makes the committee structure seem almost inherently appealing to our ecclesiastical DNA.  But to be honest, from time to time I find myself asking “Why do we need committees?”  Are there not any other options?

PORTRAIT of a COMMITTEE

Let me sketch a synical picture:

The old cliche’ seems all too true: “A committee is a group of people who take hours just to keep minutes.”

Let’s be honest. In most churches, some seem to equate frequent meetings with effective ministry.  Yet, in those same churches, others avoid serving on committees just so they don’t have to go to meetings. True?

The typical committee will gather on occasion to discuss some particular matter.  (Frequency of meetings vary, and is seems to be decided by how much the chairperson likes to attend meetings. Food to be consumed during the meeting is optional.)   Usually the meeting officially opens with some perfunctory prayer (not real worship or intercession), and is followed by a lot of chatter.

Committee members are not often experts about the subject they are discussing, nor necessarily even students of the related issues.  Nevertheless, there rarely  seems to be any lack of opinions.

There has to be a better way.

What if, in a particular church, each ministry simply had a director?  A director would be someone with a growing knowledge (expertise?) and who senses a passion for, and even a calling to, a particular ministry or work.  What if such a person were the one to set the direction & pace?  Would we still need to have committees?

OBJECTIONS

I know there are objections to such a notion. Among them might be:

1. People would not have a voice. They would feel no ownership, and therefore might not participate or support a ministry.

2. There is a need for a shared work load.

I’ve heard both, so let me take a moment to address these concerns.

1. People would not have a voice, and might not participate or support the ministry.

I suspect that this is probably true in some cases.  If the leadership of the church (in Presbyterian cirlces meaning the Session, or Elders) appointed a person or persons, but did not open it up to anyone who wanted to volunteer, there may be some objections. But where this is true I think it reflects a more fundamental problem than the presence or absence of a committee structure.

What does such an attitude say about the people and their respect for the leadership of the church?  In such situations, it seems to me, there is at least one of three issues undermining the overall health of the church: 1) the leadership may have a history of being inept; 2) more common, the people in the church have a seriously deficient view of the role of leadership; 3) and worst of all, people are sinfully rejecting the God-ordained leadership of the church.

The presence of any one of these conditions undermines the possibility of an effective ministry.  And these conditions reflect a far more serious problem than the lack of a committee, or even the lack of a ministry.  If leadership is rejected because of incompetence or a history of unqualified leaders, then the church must ask itslef why such leaders were ever elected, or allowed to be appointed, in the first place. If people are rejecting and rebelling against a qualified leadership that God has put in place in that church, then ultimately the people are acting against God himself.  In either case the church has sin that needs to be addressed. No structure will compensate.

Now, let’s assume that the problem is the unwillingness of the people – or the unwillingness of a visible small group of people – to follow the direction of godly leadership.  Do we really want to establish (or perpetuate) a committee system just to appease people in their sin? (NOTE: I am not saying that having a committee structure is sinful, just asking if appeasement is sufficient reason to operate that way.)

2. There is need for a shared workload.

This is a very valid point. Most ministry is too cumbersome to be accomplished alone.  This is especially true when the leader is employed in another vocation.  He/she has responsibilities to honor God through work in that field, and responsibilites to those who work with him/her at that business.  On top of that there are family priorities, not to mention service to the community.

Time is a precious commodity – and a limited one.  I suspect that is why so many Americans are willing to simply write a check. More money we can often find, but time is a little scarce.

Because of time limitations it would be difficult for most people to lead every aspect of a multi-facted ministry.  It would be even more difficult to develop the level of expertise in each area that would facilitate effecitveness.  The work load needs to be shared.

TEAM APPROACH vs. COMMITTEES

To me the TEAM approach seems to be a much better idea than traditional committees.  Committees may be very helpful when reviewing the work of someone or something. Different perspectives can enhance understanding and perceptions.  But this is not the same thing as getting something accomplished.

Teams are composed of a group of individuals with a shared commitment and shared goals.  Each member of any team has a specific position to play, a particular responsibility. The whole team depends upon each person to perform his/her job to be effective.  This requires that each person becomes an ‘expert’ or advanced ‘student’ of their respective position.

Each team may have one person who is the organizational leader, like a coach or captain. (This would be the Director I mentioned earlier.) But it takes every person on the team to know what they need to do and how to do it to succeed.  When each person does their job the team “wins”.

Now, what if we applied more TEAM concept than traditional committees to the ministries of our churches? A few things come to mind:

1. Effectiveness

Team members would be clear about what they were attempting to do, and how their efforts were contributing to the success of the whole; and ultimately to the advancement of God’s Kingdom.  No one would be on the team without a specific responsibility.  This is not always the case in the traditional committee structure.  Many times a committee is composed of a represntative sample from the congregation merely so every part of the church has a voice.  People do not always have specific ongoing spheres of responsibility. They have no particular area where they provide informed insight, only opinions.  Meetings can get bogged down trying to come to some consensus of opinion, rather than experienceing the synergy that occurs when each member performs a vital part.

2. Retention

The lack of clear responsibility and ineffectiveness are perhaps the two primary reasons people decline to serve on committees. No one wants to put in time and effort if they are unsure of what they are trying to accomplish, or if they see no accomplishment for their labors.  But if members have clear job descriptions and see thier work contributing to something bigger than themsleves, I suspect fewer people would resign from the various ministries of the church.

3. Unity

There is less room for division or conflict when each member knows his/her role and the role of the others.  And if conflict does arise it will be much easier for all to recognize the source.  Either, 1) someone is not doing his/her job, thus causing stress to other team members; or 2) someone is overstepping thier bounds, disrespecting or even hindering another team member is his/her responsibility.  (Should such a thing happen Matthew 18 & Galatians 6.1-2 can be applied to bring about reconciliation.)

4. Community

These teams provide an opportunity to develop relationships.  A shared task binds people together.  This would have to be intentional.  Team members are not only interdependent, but can offer themselves into voluntary accountability, much as is generally expected in small groups.  (Roberta Hestenes has written a short booklet about this called, Turning Committees Into Communities.)

Conclusion

Maybe it is merely a matter of semantics.  Maybe we simply need to raise the standard bar for our committees, rather than reinvent our structures.  But It seems to me that moving more toward this approach would produce more effectiveness in the work of the Kingdom. Maybe even more than that, as I look at some of the possible outcomes of such an approach, it might be an opportunity to better reflect the Kingdom within our churches.

Making a World of Difference

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

“What will it take to change the world – to really change it for the better?”

Ron Sider asks that question in the Introduction to his book, Living Like Jesus.  And his question resonates with me. It has for a long time – long before I heard Sider aksing it. 

I grow bored and frustrated with a faith that simply exists to perpetuate itself.  It has never seemed to me to be the faith I see in the Bible.  The early disciples of Jesus turned the world upside down! Jesus came to reclaim the world that is rightfully his.  Somehow, isolating oursleves while singing “When the Roll is Called Up Yonder” does not seem to match God’s purpose for his church.

The church of Jesus Christ is intended to be an expression of what the Kingdom of God is and will be.  We are called to be influencers in a world that is corrupt to its very core.  (See Matthew 5:13-16 & Jeremiah 29:7)

And we are to be influencers while recognizing that we have been infected by the very corruption of sin that is continuing to devastate the world around us. We are not immune. But we are in remission because of the blood of Christ. (See Romans 3:25 & Hebrews 9:22) 

Such an understanding shapes our attitdes as we do what we are called to do. Knowing that we are not superior, but are totally dependent upon the grace of God in the blood of Christ, we are humble and compassionate toward the world we are called to serve.  And knowing that our only hope is God’s grace, we glorify God through thankfulness to him and dependence upon him. 

Sadly, I see too may churches, and too many Christians, who have chosen to isolate themselves from the world they see as polluted.  They have no intention of trying to influence it, only to escape it. 

This seems foolish to me for a number of reasons.

First, it is directly disobedient to God’s intention for his people (See Genesis 12:2-3).  The motive for this disobedience may be the understanding that we are not immune to the corruption of sin. It is therefore an act of self preservation; it is an attempt to avoid becomming infected.  But it is still disobedience to God.  And it is a lack of functional faith that he will preserve his people.

Secondly, self preservation is misguided because, as Romans 3:23 shows us, we have all already beeen infected! We can hide if we want, but it will do us no good.  The infection is already inside the camp!

Finally, worst of all are those who isolate themselves and live as if they think they are immune to the effect of sin. These are self-righteous separatists. If they are impervious to sin, why isolate themselves? Such people make no positive influence on the world that I can see.  And frankly, because of their wrong view of themsleves and their direct disobedience to God, I am not sure I really consider them truly Christian! (However, I don’t get a vote.)

So I wrestle with the question: How can we make a difference? How can we change the world? How can we influence it toward what God intends it to be?

Sider offers an answer to his own question:

“I think the answer is simple: It would take just a tiny fraction of today’s Christians truly believeing what Jesus taught and living the way Jesus lived.”

I think Sider is right.

Siders book elaborates on practical ways we need to examine our lives, and ways our lives are to reflect the life & teaching of Jesus.  It revolves around what Sider labels Characteristics of a Genuine Christian: 

1. Genuine Christians embrace both God’s holiness and God’s love.

2. Genuine Christians live like Jesus.

3. Genuine Christians keep their marriage covenants and put children before career.

4. Genuine Christians nurture daily spiritual renewal and live in the power of the Spirit.

5. Genuine Christians strive to make the church a little picture of what heaven will be like.

6. Genuine Christians love the whole person the way Jesus did.

7. Genuine Christians mourn church divisions and embrace all who confess Jesus as God and Savior.

8. Genuine Christians confess that Jesus is Lord of politics and economics.

9. Genuine Christians share God’s special concern for the poor.

10. Genuine Christians treasure the creation and worship the Creator.

1l. Genuine Christians embrace servanthood.

This list alone is worth the price of the book. 

I think much good would come if we sincerely reflected on these premises.  How much more if we began to humbly acknowledge that often we have been negligent in many of these areas, and began to act on them in accordance with the teaching and life of Christ?

I suspect we would see our influence grow; that our influence would be viewed as a positive thing.  I suspect we may even see Proverbs 11:10 come to life:

When the righteous prosper the city rejoices;  When the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy!

Pastors Near Pastures

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

The following words, along with Francis Schaeffer’s No Little People, were helpful to me when last year we accpted the opportunity to return to East Tennessee rather than pursue opportunities with churches in larger cities:

“Few men have the courage to seek obscurity for the sake of its advantages, but there can be no doubt of the intellectual advantages of a quiet country charge. When I hear men complain of the lack of stimulus in a rural parish, or find them longing to preach to audiences more cultivated and worthy of their talents, I feel disposed to think that the poor quality of their intellectual fabrics is due not so much to lack of proper appliances, but rather to a dearth of raw material. Many a man will tell you that he owes all that he afterward became, to the circumstance that, under God, he enjoyed the quiet rural solitude, and had opportunity of uninterupted thought and reading.”

– Francis Patton, in his biography of A.A. Hodge

Emergent & Reformed Coming Together?

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

Sometimes listening in to others’ conversation is unavoidable – like when you are standing between two aquaintances at the Kroger’s check out line.  But sometimes eavesdropping is highly informative – especially when a conversation is in print.

Such an informative, though seemingly improbable, dialogue has been taking place at Christianity Today.  Tony Jones, of Emergent Village, and Collin Hansen, of Christianity Today, have been engaging one another about each other’s books, and about the movements they represent: Emergent vs. Young Reformed.

I am familar with Hansen from his work with Christianity Today.  A few years ago I read with great interest his piece, Young, Restless & Reformed.  I was excited to have confirmed what I had been seeing with my eyes – that many, many young adults are hungering to know God, and have found, as I have, the best expressions of theology flow from the hearts and pens of both old and contemporary Calvinistic authors.  Hansen’s article has now blossomed into a book (that I have yet to read).

I am also somewhat familiar with Jones.  He is one of the leading voices of the Emergent movement that is seeming to polarize Evangelicalism.  But while I was familiar with Jones, quite honestly I’ve read only a little of his writing. I have read much more of other Emergent leaders.  But I had recently listened to an interview Jones did on Steve Brown, etc., and came away impressed with his heart and conviction – though still not with all his theological premises. 

So it was with that familiarity that I read the 5-Day discussion: Emergent’s New Christians & Young, Restless, Reformed.

I found the discussion refreshing.  It is not just that both articulate varient positons well.  Having read at least some works by both I expected that. It is more the tone. They are both open, honest, and seeking to understand as much as to be understood.  It is the mutually expressed desire for agreement – even though they both know they differ from one another, in some respects even significantly.  I think this is a great example to many of us. It is a good expression of what Francis Schaeffer writes about in The Mark of the Chirstian.  But sadly it is not common enough.

I have been interested in the Emergent movement for several years. Like many others I have some significant concerns with some of the things associated with this movement.  Unlike many of my Reformed friends, however, I have been far less critical.  For one reason, it seems to me that it is very difficult to lump all things Emergent under one umbrella.  Emergents appear almost as diverse as the broad category of Protestant. (Scot McKnight seems to concur. See: Five Streams of the Emerging Church.) A second reason is that some, maybe even many, associated with the Emergents have offered some profoundly important insights that the rest of us would do well to consider.  And finally I have tried to be patient because this movement is still in it’s infancy. As the movement matures I assume so will some of their positions.  Frankly, I would not want to be judged today on the basis of things I said when I was seven years old; or twelve; or eighteen; or even thirty five!  I have to take the immaturity of the movement into consideration whenever I hear or read things that appear off base.

Still, I do have my concerns. The analysis of D.A. Carson, or Mark Dever, or McKnight have real merit. 

But I wonder if something might be happening. In fact, I suspect it is. And this discussion fuels my specualtion.  I wonder if some of the Emergents, in their hunger for authentic experience of Christianity, might begin to see and embrace the truths of historic theology, perhaps particularly those expressed by the Puritans.  While they gets bad PR, Puritan theology was & is radical, profoundly deep, and highly experiential. Those seem to be among the traits that the most sincere of the Emergents are seeking.

The various streams within the Emergent movement will no doubt take some proponents in differing directions as the movement develops.  We won’t know where until the Emergent movement grows up. But I hope Jones’ and Hansen’s discussion may be a beginning of something BIG.  I for one am hoping we may be seeing the beginnings of a river of neo-Puritanism.

Building a House of Prayer

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

As the officers of our church and I work through our vision and philosophy of ministry process, there are two simple and fundamental truths that serve as a foundation and shape my thinking.

First, Jesus says: “I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18) And the psalmist says: “Unless the Lord builds the house the laborers labor in vain.”  (Psalm 127:1)  In other words, unless a church (or a home) is built upon the way the Lord wants it, and by the power of God himself, no matter how grand, no matter how great it appears, all our efforts are in vain.  Unless God builds our church, God will not be pleased with anything we develop.

Second, one of the characteristics the Lord specifically says will mark his church – his “house” – is prayer.  “My house will be called a house of prayer for all Nations.” (see Isaiah 56:7; Matthew 21:13) 

Cheryl Sacks, in her book The Prayer Saturated Church, points out that there are some important differences between a church that prays and a house of prayer. (Click: God’s Standard)

I guess, if you think about it, that passage adds two other dimensions to the house God builds. 

First we see Global Missions. The passage indicates the Lord is concerned about the Nations – ALL Nations.  One aspect of a house of prayer for all Nations is that our prayers should include passionate intercession for the advancement of the Gospel among all People Groups (ethnos) throughout the world. 

But another aspect this verse seems to indicate is Unity in Diversity.  Our churches should be open to, even cultivate, a cultural diversity within our doors.  Our churches ought to be places where peoples from any Nation (literally all ethnos, or ethnicities) should be welcome to come to join for prayer. While not every community has a diverse international community, perhaps our churches ought to at least reflect some of the diversity of our neighborhoods.

As I think about that, Matthew 21:13 provides both a foundation (prayer) and scope or goal of ministry (Nations).  That’s a big job.  I’m glad God is the builder.

Love: The Sixth Mark of the Church

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

heart-3.jpgby James M. Boice

What is the greatest mark of the Church? I do not mean by this: What is the first mark of the Church, or even, What is the mark that we perhaps most lack? I mean: What is the greatest mark, the one that holds the others together? What is the one that gives meaning to the others, the one without which the Church cannot at all be what God means it to be? There is only one answer. The greatest mark of the Church is love. 

The Lord Jesus Christ, having spoken of joy, holiness, truth, mission and unity as essential marks of the Church in his high priestly prayer of John 17, concludes by an emphasis upon love. It is the new commandment of John 13:34,35 once again – “that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” 

We see the preeminence of love quite readily, if we look at it in reference to the other marks of the Church. What happens when you take love away from them? Suppose you take joy and subtract love from it? What do you have? You have hedonism. You have an exuberance in life and its pleasures, but without the sanctifying joy found in relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Subtract love from holiness. What do you find then? You find self-righteousness, the kind of virtue that characterized the Pharisees of  Christ’s day. By the standards of the day the Phariseeslived very holy lives, but they did not love others and thus were quite ready to kill Christ when he challenged their standards, and actually did kill him. They were hypocrites. 

Take love from truth, and you have a bitter orthodoxy, the kind of teaching which is right but which does not win anybody. Take love from mission, and you have imperialism. It iscolonialism in ecclesiastical garb. We have seen much of that in recent history. 

Take love from unity, and you soon have tyranny. This develops in a hierarchical church where there is no compassion for people nor a desire to involve them in the decision-making process. 

That is one side of it. On the other hand, express love in relation to God and man and what do you find? You find all the other marks of the church following. What does love for God the Father lead to? Joy! Because we rejoice in God and in what he has so overwhelmingly done for us. What does love for the Lord Jesus Christ lead to? Holiness! Because we know that we will see him one day and will be like him; therefore “every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 John 3:3). What does love for the Word of God lead to? Truth! Because if we love the Word, we will study it and therefore inevitably grow into a fuller appreciation and realization of God’s truth. What does love for the world lead to? Mission! We have a message to take to the world. Again, where does love for our Christian brothers and sisters lead us? To unity! Because by love we discern that we are bound together in that bundle of life which God himself has created within the Christian community. 

What can we say about love on the basis of these verses? First of all, we can say that it has its source in God. This is the kind of love we are talking about. We are not talking about the kind of love the ‘world invents, aspires to or imagines, but rather the love of God which is revealed in Jesus Christ and which we come to know as we come to know God. It is obvious that Jesus has precisely this thought in mind, because verse 25, the prelude to verse 26, talks about knowledge. In it Jesus says, “O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.” It is after this that Jesus goes on to say, “And I have declared unto them thy name [that is, I have made you known in your essential nature], and will declare it, [in order] that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”What Jesus is saying is that, if we know God, we will know God’s nature as being characterized by love and that, if we do not know love, we do not know God. It is the same point that John later makes clear in his first epistle (1 John 4:7, 8). 

When Jesus says that the world has not known God, this means, in addition to everything else, that the world does not know God as a God of love. This was demonstrated true in Christ’s day. No Greek, no Roman, no Egyptian, no Babylonian in Christ’s day, or in any of the centuries before, had ever thought of God’s nature as being essentially characterized by love. It is just not there. Read all the ancient documents, and you simply do not find this element. At best, God was thought to be impartial. Or, if one chose to think optimistically, God could sometimes be said to love those who love him; meaning that he might be favorable to them for their service. But this is a tit-for-tat arrangement (you serve me, and I will take care of you), not the benevolent, unmerited love of God disclosed in the Bible. It simply does not exist in antiquity, except in apreparatory form within the pages of the Old Testament. 

With the Lord Jesus Christ an entirely new idea entered history. For he taught, not only that God is loving, but also that he loves with an extraordinary love, entirely beyond all human imaginations. That love had sent Christ to die. Moreover, on that basis it would now draw a host of redeemed men and women into an extraordinary family relationship with God. 

This leads to a second point, the revelation itself. We ask: Where does the revelation of God’s love occur? Again, it is a somewhat complicated answer. Certainly God had revealed himself to be a God of love in the pages of the Old Testament. God indicated there that he had set his love upon Israel even though there was nothing in the people to merit it. Again, God is revealed to be a God of love in Christ’s teaching. He called him Father, indicating that his was a father’s love. All that is true. Yet the best truth is that God is declared to be a God of love by the cross of Jesus Christ. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).  

This is what Jesus is looking forward to in the words that close his prayer, for he says, “I will declare it,” meaning the name of God. What is he thinking of here? We could understand the phrase if it Ihad occurred in the past tense, for it would then clearly refer to the previous teaching in the Gospel. But why the future tense? What is Jesus thinking about? It must be the Cross itself. For it is as though Jesus is saying, “That which I have been speaking of in years past I am now going to demonstrate in a dramatic and tangible way through my crucifixion.” 

There has never been – there never will be – a greater demonstration of the love of God. So if you will not have the Cross, if you will not see God speaking in love in Jesus Christ, you will never find a loving God anywhere. The God of the Bible is going to be a silent God for you. The universe is going to be an empty universe. History is going to be meaningless. It is only at the Cross that you will ever find God in his true nature and learn that these other things have meaning. 

There is something else in this text. For Jesus does not merely show where we can find love. He also shows where we can demonstrate love, for he goes on to pray that “the love with whichthou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.” Love is to be shown in us personally. 

Why is Jesus concerned about this? I am sure he is concerned about this simply because it is only in his followers that anyone in this age, or any other age save his own, can see this great love. Jesus was aware that he was about to die. Following his death, there would be a resurrection and an ascension into heaven. Therefore, this one who was himself the perfect manifestation of love, the only one in whom this world had ever seen what true love really is – this one would be gone. He would not be here for men and women to contemplate. So he says as he closes his prayer that this love is now to be in us, even as he is in us, and that the world is to see it there. It must be love in action. 

But how do we do it? That is the real question. How do we love one another? How do we put this great love of God into practice? Let me share a few very practical ways. 

First, we need to love one another by listening to one another. We live in an age in which people do not listen to one another. Oh, we talk to one another, and others are constantly talking to us. But it is a hard world in which no one really listens. So one of the things we need to do, if we are truly characterized by the love of God at this point, is to listen. God listens to us.  

Second, we should share. That is, we should let others share, and we should share ourselves. We are not professional counselors, trained to do nothing but listen and never interject ourselves. Weare brothers and sisters in the Lord. We have a family relationship. So we do not sit like computers, analyzing what we are told and then coming back with answers carefully based upon social science surveys. We come back as people who are on the same level as the ones to whom we are talking, and we say, “Yes, I’ve gone through that. God has done this and this for me.” 

Our problem is that we do not like to share ourselves. And the reason we do not like to share ourselves is, if we put it quite frankly, that we are ashamed of ourselves because we are sinners and are afraid that if we really did tell what is down inside, the other person would turn away and be disgusted. We would lose the relationship. So how do we get to the point of being able really to share? There is only one way, and that is to know deep in our hearts that before God we are fully known as we are, with all our blemishes, sins and shames, and that, nevertheless, Jesus Christ has loved us, died for us and that we are now fully accepted in the beloved. If you can know that, that you are known and yet loved, then you can share your true self and love others. 

Third, we must serve. The thirteenth chapter of John begins with a reference to service as the outworking of Christ’s love: “Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end” (13:1). It continues with a demonstration of what this love means in the washing of the disciples’ feet. Jesus concluded, “If I, then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one I another’s feet” (13:14). Later Jesus goes on to teach what this love means, what the Holy Spirit will do in enabling us to love and then, finally, in his prayer, what are the special marks that should characterize the Church in this and every age: joy, holiness, truth,unity, mission and love. The last of these involves service. 

And quite rightly! For the Christian Church is not in the world to be served. She is in the world to serve. 

 **********

This is the sixth in a series of six posts by Dr James M. Boice concerning the characteristics of a healthy church.

Unity: The Fifth Mark of the Church

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

by James M. Boice

The divisions that exist today are too obvious to need comment. They lie both on the surface and within. Battles rage. Even highly praised church mergers not only fail to heal these divisions but also usually lead to further breakups involving those who do not like the new union. So far as Christ’s reasons for praying for unity go, it is simply that he foresaw these differences and so asked for that great unity which should exist among his own in spite of them. 

All the marks of the church concern the Christian’s relationship to some thing or some person. Unity is to be the mark of the church in the relationships which exist between its members. Joy is the mark of the Christian in relationship to himself. Holiness is the mark in relationship to God. Truth is the mark in his relationship to the Bible. Mission is the mark in his relationship to the world. In this mark, unity, and the last, love, which in some sense summarizes them all, we deal with the Christian’s relationship to all who are likewise God’s children. 

What kind of unity is this to be?

One thing the church is not to be is a great organizational unity. Whatever advantages or disadvantages may be involved in massive organizational unity, this in itself obviously does not produce the results Christ prayed for, nor does it solve the church’s other great problems. Moreover, it has been tried and found wanting. In the early days of the church there was much vitality and growth but little organizational unity. Later, as the church came to favor under Constantine and his successors, the church increasingly centralized until during the Middle Ages there was literally one united ecclesiastical body covering all Europe. Wherever one went – whether north, east, south or west – there was one united, interlacing church with the Pope at its head. But was this a great age? Was there a deep unity of faith? Was the church strong? Was its morality high? Did men and women find themselves increasingly drawn to this faith and come to confess Jesus Christ to be their Savior and Lord (for that is what Christpromised, namely, that if the church were one, men and women would believe on him)? Not at all! On the contrary, the world believed the very opposite. 

Another type of unity that we do not need is conformity, that is, an approach to the church which would make everyone alike. Here we probably come closest to the error of the evangelical church. For if the liberal church for the most part strives for an organizational unity – the evangelical church for its part seems to strive for an identical pattern of looks and behavior among its members. This is not what Jesus is looking for in this prayer. On the contrary, there should be the greatest diversity among Christians, diversity of personality, interests, life style and even methods of Christian work and evangelism. This should make the church interesting, not dull. Uniformity is dull, like row upon row of cereal boxes. Variety is exciting! It is the variety of nature and of the character and actions of our God. 

But if the unity for which Jesus prayed is not an organizational unity or a unity achieved by conformity, what kind of unity is it? The answer is that it is a unity parallel to the unity that exists within the Godhead; for Jesus speaks of it in these terms – “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us… I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17:21, 23). This means that the church is to have a spiritual unity involving the basic orientation, desires and will of those participating. Paul points to this true unity in writing to the Corinthians, saying, “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who worketh all in all (1 Corinthians 12:4-6). 

The various images used of the church throughout the New Testament help us understand the nature of this unity. For instance, Christians belong to the family of God, and therefore they are rightly brothers and sisters of one another. We begin with this image because these terms, brothers and sisters, are the most common terms used by Christians of one another in the New Testament. 

The unique characteristic of this image – that of the family, or of brothers and sisters – is that it speaks of relationships and therefore of the commitments that the individuals must have to one another. The relationships are based upon what God has done. Salvation is described as God begetting spiritual children, who are therefore made members of his spiritual family through his choice and not through their own. 

This fact has two important consequences. 

First, if the family to which we belong has been established by God, then we have no choice as to who will be in it or whether or not we will be his or her sister or brother. On the contrary, the relationship simply exists, and we must be brotherly to the other Christian, whether we want to be or not. 

The second consequence is simply that we must be committed to each other in tangible ways. We must be committed to helping each other, for example. For we all need help at times, and this is one clear way in which the special bond among believers can be shown to the watching world. 

The second important image used to portray the unity of the church of Christ is a fellowship, which the New Testament normally indicates by the Greek word koinonia. The word at its base has to do with sharing something or having something in common. In spiritual terms koinonia, or fellowship, is had by those who share a common Christian experience of the gospel. In this respect the New Testament speaks often of our fellowship with the Father (1 John 1 :3), with the Son (1 Corinthians 1:9), which is sometimes described as a fellowship in the blood and body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10: 16), and with the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14). 

But fellowship is not only defined in terms of what we share in together. It also involves what we share out together. And this means that it must involve a community in which Christians actually share their thoughts and lives with one another. 

How is this to be done practically? It will probably be done in different ways in different congregations depending upon local situations and needs. Some churches are small and therefore will have an easier time establishing times of sharing. Here church suppers, work projects and other such efforts will help. Larger churches will have to break their numbers down into smaller groups in various ways. 

The third important image used to stress the unity of the church is the body. Clearly, this image has many important connotations. It speaks of the nature of the Christian union – one part of the body simply cannot survive if it is separated from the whole. It speaks of interdependence. It even suggests a kind of subordination involving a diversity of function; for the hand is not the foot, nor the foot the eye, and over all is the head which is Christ. 

However, the one function of the body which is unique to this image is service. For just as the family emphasizes relationships, and fellowship emphasizes sharing, so does the body emphasize work. The body exists to do something and, since we are talking about unity, we must stress that it exists to enable us to do this work together. 

What is to be your part in this area? What will you do? Obviously you cannot change the whole church, but, first, you can become aware of that great family, fellowship and body to which you already belong, and you can thank God for it. Second, you can join a small group, where the reality of Christian unity is most readily seen and experienced. Third, you can work with that group to show forth Christian love and give service. If you are willing to do that, you will find God to be with you, and you will be overwhelmed at the power with which he works both in you and in others whom he will be drawing to faith. 

****

This is the fifth in a series of six posts by Dr James M. Boice concerning the characteristics of a healthy church.

Mission: The Fourth Mark of the Church

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

A number of years ago, when the well-known conference speaker Ralph L. Keiper was preaching at a missions conference in Deerfield Street, New Jersey, he told about a little girl who had come to see him early in his ministry. She was about eight years old.  She had been to the church’s daily vacation Bible school. And when she came into his study she asked, “Mr. Keiper, is it all right if I commit suicide?” 

 The young pastor was startled. But he had learned never to give a quick Yes or No answer to a child’s question without first discovering why the child is asking the question. So he countered,“Mary, why would you ever want to commit suicide?” 

 “Well,” Mary said, “it’s because of what I learned in Bible school this morning.” 

 Keiper wondered to himself, “What was this child told?” 

She said, “We were taught that heaven is a wonderful place – no fear, no crying, no fighting, just to be with the Lord. Won’t that be wonderful! We were taught that when we die we will be with Jesus. Did I hear it right, Mr. Keiper?” 

“Yes, you did, Mary. But why would you want to commit suicide?” 

“Well,” she said, “you have been in my home. You know my mother and daddy. They don’t know Jesus. Many times they are drunk. So we have to get ourselves up in the morning, get our own breakfast and go to school with dirty clothes. The children make fun of us, and when we come home again we hear fighting and things that make us afraid. Why couldn’t I commit suicide?” 

It is clear that Mary did not believe in theoretical theology; she believed in practical theology, and she was facing a very practical problem. What she was really asking is why are we in this world anyway. If this world is such a sin-cursed place and heaven is such a blessed place, why do we have to stay here? Why does God not take us to heaven immediately upon our conversion? Or, failing that, why do we not all take our own life and so speed up what is an inevitable ending anyway?

Keiper answered by saying, “Mary, there is only one reason in God’s world why we are here. And that is that through our testimony, by life and by word, we might have the privilege of bringing people to the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus.” He then indicated that, as Mary did this, it might be in the Lord’s providence that her parents would come to know the Lord as their Savior. Later, her mother did. 

Keiper’s story is important in light of the fourth mark of the church.

Up to this point we have been talking about those things which concern the church itself or which concern individual Christians personally. We have looked at joy, holiness and truth. But while these are important and undoubtedly attainable to a large degree in this life, nevertheless it does not take much thinking to figure out that all three of them would be more quickly attained if we could only be transported to heaven. Here we have joy; that is true. But what is this joy compared to the joy we will have when we see the source of our joy face to face? The Bible acknowledges this when it speaks of the blessedness of the redeemed saints, from whose eyes all tears shall be wiped away (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Again, in this world we undoubtedly know a degree of sanctification. But what of that day when we shall be completely like him (1 John 3:2)? Or again, here we are able to assimilate some aspects of God’s truth and know truly. But in the day of our final redemption we shall know fully. “Now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then, face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). If this is true, why should we not go to heaven immediately? 

The answer is in the mark of the church to which we come now. For the church is not only to look inward and find joy, to look Christ-ward and find sanctification, to look to the Scriptures and find truth. The church is also to look outward to the world and there find the object of her God-given mission. 

The word “mission” comes from the Latin verb mitto, mittere, misi, missum, which means “to send” or “dispatch.” A mission is a sending forth. “But to whom is the church sent? Where are we sent as Christian missionaries?” The answer is, into the world. Jesus says quite clearly, “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world” (v. 18). 

Here is why the evangelical church in the U.S. is not as much of a missionary church as it claims to be. It is not that the evangelical church does not support foreign missions. Rather it lies at the point of the evangelicals’ personal withdrawal from the culture. Many seem afraid of their culture. Hence, they try to keep as far from the world as possible lest they be contaminated or polluted by it. Thus they have developed their own subculture. As some Bible teachers have pointed out, it is possible, for example, to be born of Christian parents, grow up in that Christian family, have Christian friends, go to Christian schools and colleges, read Christian books, attend a Christian country club (known as a church), watch Christian movies, get Christian employment, be attended by a Christian doctor, and finally, one may suppose, die and be buried by a Christian undertaker on holy ground. But this is certainly not what Jesus meant when he spoke of his followers being “in the world.” 

What does it mean to be in the world as a Christian? It does not mean to be like the world; the marks of the church are to make the church different. It does not mean that we are to abandon Christian fellowship or our other basic Christian orientations. All it means is that we are to know non-Christians, befriend them, and enter into their own lives in such a way that we begin to infect them with the gospel, rather than their infecting us with their worldliness, which is the wrong way around. 

The second thing the text talks about is the character of the ones who are to conduct this mission. The point here is that we are to be as Christ in the world. This is made clear both in verse 18 and 19, for Jesus compares the disciples to himself both in the area of his having been sent into the world by the Father and of his being sanctified or set apart totally to that work. He says, “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” In other words, we are to be in our mission as Jesus was in his mission. We are to be like the One whom we are presenting. 

Perhaps you are saying, “I do not know if I am like Jesus or not. In what areas should I be like him?” Obviously we are to be like him in every way. In other words; as his life was characterized by joy, so is our life to be characterized by joy. As he was sanctified, so are we to be sanctified. As he was characterized by truth, so are we to be. 

We are also to be like the Lord Jesus Christ in our unity. The world is fractured in a million ways. It is the logical outcome of the work of Satan, one of whose most revealing names is the disrupter (diabolos). If Christians would win the world, they must show a genuine unity which is in itself desirable and winsome and which at the same time points to the great unity within the Godhead, which is its source. 

Finally, the church must be marked by love, if it is to be as Christ in the world. Jesus loved the world; he really did. It was out of love for it that he died. Consequently, if we would win the world, we must love the world too – not the world’s system or sin, of course, but rather those who are in it. 

Once my family was eating in a restaurant, and my youngest daughter knocked over her glass of coke for about the thousandth time. I was visibly annoyed, as I always am (since we never seem to get through a meal without the identical accident). But we cleaned up and shortly after that left the restaurant. My daughter walked along in silence for awhile; but then she said, “You really hate it when we spill our cokes, don’t you?” I replied that I certainly did. She looked serious, but then she brightened up as if a particularly happy thought had just passed through her mind. She threw her arms around me in a big hug and added, “But you love me!” 

She knew the difference between love of the sinner and hatred of sin. And so will we if we look to Jesus. We must be like him in love, knowing that if we are, the world will see it and be drawn to him.  

********

This is the fourth in a series of six posts by Dr James M. Boice concerning the characteristics of a healthy church.