As simple as knowing, hearing, and responding
Felicity at “Simple Church” wrote a very succinct, but thought-provoking post called “The One Key Skill in Simple Church.” She begins with this:
One of the main paradigm shifts within this movement of simple churches is the belief that ordinary men and women hear God. They can be entrusted with the affairs of the Kingdom. It does not need specially trained people to manage the church. The Holy Spirit is able to run the church by speaking directly to His people.  He will do a far better job of it than our organizations and denominations ever can.
Within simple church, we like to say that church is as simple as knowing God, hearing His voice and responding to what He tells us. Jesus is head of His church, and if we believe that we are to take this literally, it means that both at an individual and at a corporate level, He desires to communicate with us. It also presupposes that we have the ability to recognize His voice when He is speaking to us.
What Felicity is saying here is very similar to what I said in my post “Justification and the Church Meeting.” Those who have been saved, justified, indwelled, born again, etc. have everything necessary to be a functioning part of the church and even to take part (speaking and serving) in a church meeting.
In fact, most Christians would agree with what Felicity said… in theory. But, when it comes to practice, many feel that they must protect the church from themselves. That someone may say or do something wrong… unhelpful… selfish… heretical… etc. Therefore, only certain people are allowed to speak / serve when the church meets.
When I read Felicity’s post, I began asking myself these questions: Do I really trust God with his people and his church and his kingdom? Do I really believe that Jesus can build his church better than I can? Do I really believe that the Spirit can use any of God’s children to speak to or serve me and others in a way that helps me grow in maturity?
And finally this question: Is my life with my brothers and sisters in Christ demonstrating that I REALLY believe these things?
Another view of community discipleship
David Nelson has written positively about community discipleship in a post called “I Was Never ‘Mentored’: A Report from the Field, Part 3.” Here is one part of the article:
Put another way, the one-on-one model often highlights the strengths of the discipler, but may also unduly reproduce the weaknesses. I became acutely aware of this some years ago when I saw a person who had met one of my “disciples†(a young man I “mentored†for about two years) and our mutual friend commented, “Oh, I wasn’t with him ten minutes before I knew he was your disciple.†As I listened to him explain why I realized that the young man had not only been positively shaped by me, but had also picked up some quirks and peculiarities from me that I could only hope he would outgrow.
Nelson also suggests that the “Paul/Timothy” model is not THE model of discipleship in Scripture, and perhaps there were more people involved in their relationship besides just Paul and Timothy.
What do you think? One on one discipleship? Community discipleship? Best of both worlds? How, when, where, why, who?
Mutual Shepherding Required
Dave Black posted this on his blog this afternoon (Monday, February 15, 2010 at 3:10 pm – emphasis in original):
Pastor friend: You can’t care for the flock yourself. The demands are too many. The needs are too diverse.
Pastor friends (note the plural; I am referring to a church that has multiple elders/pastors): You can’t care for the flock yourselves. The demands are too many. The needs are too diverse.
Whether your church has a single pastor or several, the message is the same: Every-member ministry will begin when you start to accept the limitations of your love, energy, and giftedness.
AMEN! Jesus shepherds the church through the whole church! Should elders shepherd? Yes, of course. But then, all believers are called to shepherd (care for) one another.
The Big Red Tractor
Over at Simple Church Journal, there’s a great video post called “The Big Red Tractor: a Modern Day Parable.” Apparently the video was originally produced by Francis Chan (author of Crazy Love) who appears at the end of the video. Watch it, and let me know what you think.
Plus, do you think videos and/or parables such as this are effective ways to communicate?
Among you and for your sakes
This is from Dave Black’s blog this morning (Saturday, February 13, 2010 at 6:45 am):
In Greek 4 we’re going through 1 Thessalonians. The last line on this page of my Greek New Testament is 1 Thess. 1:5, where Paul says “You know what kind of people we were among you for your sakes.”
These two brief prepositional phrases pack a wallop: “Among you,” “for your sakes.” What a vast area of thought that opens up! This was Paul’s missionary method and motivation. He did everything “among the people,” not from the outside (or from above). He did everything on their behalf, not for his own benefit. I must learn from Paul. I must live among the people when I am in Ethiopia — not above them or beyond them. And I must make sure that they know I am there to serve them, not myself.
Yes, yes. “Among you” and “for your sakes”… but not just for the people in Ethiopia, or other people “over there.”
What about the people you work with everyday? What about your neighbors? What about the people that you meet with every week? Do they know what kind of person (i.e., a child of God) you are because they way you act when you are “among them” is “for their sakes” – i.e., to serve them and for their benefit?
Even More on Seminaries
Here are a couple of more posts to consider in the continuing discussion on the role of seminaries:
Who Should Train Pastors??? Seminary in the Role of The Body by Lionel
The task of continuous reorientation
Dave Black offers his views on the role of seminary today (Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 6:20 pm):
The denominational seminary has a vital role to play today. It can either reflect and teach a one-man ministry pastorate, or it can reflect and teach that pastors/elders are equippers and strategists and catalysts seeking to revive the ministry of the so-called laity so that North American Christians can carry on a peoples ministry as seen in the book of Acts. Title, formalities, and traditions often hinder the latter approach. But in fact many seminary professors are leading the charge in recovering the priesthood teaching of the New Testament. They do not call into question the existence of elders in the New Testament. They do, however, challenge the elders in their classes to work toward a more strategic use of their pastoral skills in the deployment of the entire congregation for the fuller exercise of every believer’s God-given priesthood. In my opinion, this should be the blueprint for education whether in the seminary or in the local church. Unless elders take seriously their charge of equipping, the church (and the seminary) will retain a much too exclusive concentration on the church as a clerical and sacramental institution.
If we really want to be like Jesus we’re going to have to insist on full participation of all Christians in the edification and evangelism ministries of the church. No pastor can fulfill the responsibility Christ gave to each believer. This gives our generation the gigantic task of continuous reorientation.
Hmmm… a seminary that trains the entire church to serve (minister). That sounds like my kind of seminary.
Super-gifted vs. less-gifted
Last week, I wrote a short post concerning 1 Corinthians 12:22-25 called “The weaker are indispensable” in which I concluded with the following questions:
Who are the people with “weaker†gifts, and how do we demonstrate that they are indispensable and worthy of greater honor?
Now, Andy at “aBowden Blog” has written a similar post called “Unequally equal?” in which he considers how some people are “gifted” more (or differently) than others. But, Andy does more than ask questions. He says:
The highly gifted, then, end up accumulating more and more responsibility, leaving less and less for the other believers to do. It is easy to understand how such an error was made. After all, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that the most highly gifted should do most of the ministry? Sadly, I think in our ultra-technological age we are beginning to see the tragic consequences of such a flawed assumption. Now the super-gifted do not merely accumulate the ministry within the four walls of a local congregation. Rather, we find that now the most gifted pastors and Christian speakers are not merely confined to their own congregations, but are projected live via satellite to numerous locations throughout the country. If such a practice continues, we could very soon find that five or six super-gifted believers do all this type of ministry for those of us who have an average or sub average gifting in this area.
So it seems, then, that although there remains inequality among beleivers, this does not mean that the most gifted should take on more and more of the work. What is the proper response, then, to such inequality? I think the solution is quite simple. Allow the less gifted a chance to exercise their gifting. There will always be someone more qualified, more gifted, more experienced, more capable. But maybe, just maybe, God delights in using the unlikely, the weak, the bumbling, the foolish. Perhaps it is not about always having the polished delivery, the best, most state of the art, most professional. Perhaps God delights to use those who don’t have their act together, who are still beset with weakness and struggles. Wasn’t it the apostle Paul who talked about God using cracked pots so that the glory would go to the contents, rather than the vessel?
Perhaps Paul had this idea in mind when he wrote, “On the contrary! Those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indespensible, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor†(1 Cor 12:22).
For some reason, God delights to entrust his magnificent gospel to us weak, foolish human beings. Why would he do that? Perhaps, whatever the answer is to that question, it is the for the same reason that he delights to equally use the unequally gifted.
Very well said, Andy! God does delight to use the “weak” to confound and even teach the “strong”… if the “strong” are willing to give the “weak” opportunities to speak and serve (1 Peter 4:10-11).
Could there even be a place for the “weak” and “less-gifted” to speak and serve when the church meets together?
Comfortable habits
I wish I could play guitar. I really do. I even own a very nice Fender Stratocaster. But, I never took the time to learn to play, and much of what I did learn on my own, I learned incorrectly and developed bad habits.
In a post called “Don’t be an Emotional Cop-Out“, Laura from “Who in the World Are We?” discusses guitar playing and bad habits (from the perspective of emotions):
I am a guitar player. I started playing way back in 1974, when I took a summer class at Carnegie Junior High. Two of my earliest tunes were Tom Dooley and Jet Plane. Since those early days, I have played hours upon hours, days upon days. I have trained my body and mind to play guitar. Most of the time when I play now, I don’t really think about it. I look at the chord sheet or hear the song in my head and I play. Years of practice translate across fingers and hands into vibrating strings.
After years of playing guitar, I have developed habits. Some of the habits—maybe most—are good. My left hand knows great many of the required chord shapes: the mind thinks a letter, say G, and the hand makes the shape. My right arm knows rhythms and my ears know how to sync my arm with the drums and bass.
Unfortunately, some of the habits are not good. For example, any player who knows proper form will look at my left thumb wrapped around the neck and clack their tongue: my form is usually terrible. My barre chords either depress the bottom strings or the top strings: never both. To change these habits would require new learning—probably to the point of discomfort, if not pain. At the very least, it would require hard work and time.
I could say, “It’s just how I play,†but the truth is, I developed these habits of guitar playing. I am responsible for the good and for the bad.
In an unrelated post (but related context), Art (from “Church Task Force“) added the following comment to my post called “It is dangerous to ask Why?“:
Even when leaders and Christians come to realize some of the why’s you list as being wrong, and realize what the scriptures actually direct us to do/be, doing so would be very costly. We are comfortable in familiar patterns. We may have much invested – power, position, authority – based the faulty practices and forms, and are not willing to lose them.
Think about the two statement above. Many of the things that we do (or believe) are the result of habit. We have been taught something, we’ve seen it modeled, and we’ve done it enough that it’s now habit.
Some of these habits are good. Some of these habits are bad. But, all of our habits are “comfortable” in the sense that we know what to do and how to do it. We’ve done it. We’ve believed it. It might even “work.”
In the context of guitar playing, very little is riding on our habits. We may not play as well as we could because of the bad habits we’ve developed. But, for the most part, playing guitar with bad habits is relatively low on the priority for most people.
But, what about the way we understand who God is? What about what we think about Scripture? What about the way we understand ourselves and others in relationship to God? What about the way we understand church? What about our understanding our our purpose on earth?
For me, these are very important concepts. In fact, these are “concepts” that must go beyond the conceptual stage. The “concepts” are primarily found in our demonstration not our articulation.
Many of us grew up with a foundation of concepts and living our lives in a certain way. We’re comfortable. And, when something or someone comes along to question our ideals, we fight against it… sometimes without considering other options, and sometimes even when we realize that our understanding is wrong.
Why would we fight against something that might be right? Because we’re comfortable… and anytime we move away from comfort there is pain… hard work… and time.
Is submitting the same as being subjected?
Matthew recently provided his full PhD dissertation on his website. The title of his dissertation is “The Authority of Church Elders in the New Testament.” I’m still reading through the dissertation, hoping to better understand Matthew’s position on elders and authority. But, I came across this very exciting conclusion from Hebrews 13:17:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17 ESV)
(By the way, Matthew also thinks that “Follow” is a better translation than “Obey.”)
Matthew says:
That the recipients of this letter were to choose to follow their leaders with understanding and conviction, having been persuaded, is confirmed by the exhortation itself. The author did not urge the leaders to bring the congregation into submission, which would imply they had some power to do so. These instructions were given to the congregation; they had the freedom and responsibility to follow their leaders. The author provided several reasons to persuade them to follow their leaders. (157-58)
Yes! Exactly! There is no passage of Scripture in which leaders are told to exercise authority over others. None. Every passage that is usually used to teach elders and other leaders to “exercise authority” are actually directed toward others in order to encourage them to respect or give honor to or submit to their leaders. (see also 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 and 1 Timothy 5:17)
In other words, submitting is not the same as being subjected. We are to offer our respect and follow our leaders. Leaders are never to exert authority or force others into submission.