Step thru the Scriptures
I’m working on a couple of new blog ventures, and I can tell you about one of them now.
Lionel from “A Better Covenant” is starting a new group blog called “Step thru the Scritpures.” I’m excited about being part of this new blog because Lionel’s plan is to help people read through and discuss the Scriptures together.
To begin with, the blog will parallel a daily Bible reading plan, which, if followed, will lead people to read through the Bible in a year. Each day’s reading will include a passage from the Old Testament and a passage from the New Testament.
Next, each day an author will publish a Bible study / devotion based on some or all of that day’s reading. Some of the articles will be more in depth, while others will be more devotional. All of the articles will give people a chance to read and discuss the Scriptures together.
You can choose to follow our studies at “Step thru the Scriptures” either by subscribing to the RSS feed or by subscribing to receive emails of each article.
I hope all of my readers decide to follow this new site and take part in the discussions there.
Solo or Orchestra?
Andy at “aBowden Blog” has written an excellent parable across two posts called “2nd fiddle,” “2nd fiddle cont,” and “2nd fiddle, concluded.” Here is the story in its entirety (published with Andy’s permission):
Once upon a time there was a Grand Musician who loved music. He decided to assemble a group of unlikely characters together, give them each an instrument, and let them together learn to make music. So they met regularly, helping one another keep their instruments in tune, and learning to play as they together made music. Every week they met, each bringing his own particular instrument: trumpets, bugles, drums, pianos, clarinets, oboes, french horns, flutes, guitars, violins, and many others.
After making such wonderful music together, they would leave, still humming the tunes, and letting the music spill over into each day of the week.
Eventually, the fiddle became the most valued instrument of the assembly. The band continued assembling, but forgot that they were there to make music. They became confused and thought they gathered to hear the violinist perform. Oh, what beautiful solos the fiddler gave, playing classics, writing new pieces, arranging medlies. The other musicians, in fact, forgot that they themselves were musicians. Their various instruments went unused, gathered dust, and became idle.
They developed a fine appreciation for the fiddle. After hearing his performance weekly, they would discuss his strengths and weaknesses. They knew of the emotion and passion possessed by a good fiddler. Fiddlers appeared in many places. The really good ones were listened to worldwide, and filmed and traveled and wrote books. Whole theories and styles and methods were developed for the fiddle. Fiddlers became so good and professional, that now the rest of the musicians were forgotten. The thought of not hearing weekly fiddle solos was unthinkable. How could corporate participation compare to the beauty and grace heard by the one? Surely, if all the musicians were involved, the weaker, less trained instrumentalists would detract from what they were so accustomed to in the fiddler.
And so, the fiddling continued. Deep down in the heart of each observer, however, was a longing to make music. They could not quite describe this desire, implanted in them by the Grand Musician, to contribute a piece to the melody.
The forgotten musicians reacted in different ways. Some actually liked being able to watch the fiddler. Watching took the pressure off themselves. They could sit back and enjoy the simplicity; no expectations, no responsibility, no challenge to their own skill.
Other musicians could not shake the longing in their souls to make music. And this led to a very surprising turn of events. They knew that the only music people tolerated was the sound of the fiddle. Wanting to contribute to the music because of the Grand Musician, they did what it was only possible for them to do. They picked up the fiddle, a foreign, awkward instrument, thereby receiving their passport to participation, their license to make music. And so a great number of the oboe players, the guitarists, the pianists, the trumpeters, the banjoers, became fiddlers. Their own instruments remained at home, forgotten in the dusty corners of their closets. And they managed to learn the fiddle alright. In fact, many could really learn to play quite nice.
So fiddlers appeared everywhere. In the South (where people appreciated a good fiddle more than other parts of the country) there was an overabundance of fiddlers. Fiddlers played on every street corner. Fiddlers played for great crowds and small crowds. Fiddlers played most days of the week. When the fiddlers weren’t fiddling, they wrote about fiddling, tuned their fiddles, and drew pictures of them. Most music halls employed several fiddlers. There was the main fiddler, and then the second fiddler, and the third fiddler, and the fiddler who played for teenagers, and the fiddler for children.
(This conclusion will be a very loose paraphrase/analagy of 1 Cor 12-14).
But the solution to their musical inklings was not to be found in becoming a guild of fiddlers. The solution was found in the Grand Musician’s original instructions for the band. And here’s what He said:
Now, about the band, I don’t want you to be ignorant…
To each one an instrument is given for the common good,
To one the banjo,
To one the organ,
To one the piano,
To one the guitar,
To one the flute,
and to one the fiddle.All of these originate from the one Grand Musician, who gives to each the instrument according to His own plan.
So you are a band, made up of many instruments, and though the instruments are many, they form one band.
Now, the band is not made up of one instrument, but many. If everyone were a fiddler, where would the music be? The piano can’t say to the oboe, “I don’t need you.†The guitar can’t say to the harmonica, “You don’t belong!†And if the clarinet should say, “Because I’m not a fiddle, I don’t belong to the band,†it would not for that reason cease to be a part.
But in fact, the Grand Musician has arranged the members of the band, every one of them, just as He wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the music be? As it is, there are many instruments, but one band. Those instruments that seem to be weaker are indespensible. The Grand Musician has combined the instruments of the band and given greater honor to them that lacked it, so that there should be no division and so that each musician should have equal concern for each other (not only the fiddler). If one instrumentalist is out of pitch, every part suffers. If one musician dominates the band, every part suffers.
Now, you are the Musician’s very own band, and each of you is a part of it! If you really want to excell as musicians, play in a way that is loving. Therefore, play in a way that is loving, play in a way that is encouraging, play in a way that is participatory, and by all means, include the fiddle (1 Cor. 14:40)!
Great parable, Andy!
I like “playing fiddle.” But, you know, even the best fiddle player needs to stop playing regularly and hear other fiddles, and drummers, and flutes, and …
Over the river and through the woods
Over the next week, our family will be traveling from day to day. We’ll be going to and fro, here and yon, over the river and through the woods and down the interstate.
So, there may be occasions during the next week when I cannot reply to your comments. However, I will reply as soon as possible.
Thank you for reading and interacting with my posts!
Concerning Missions: ‘We must not see ourselves as individuals.’
This quote is from Dave Black’s blog this morning (Sunday, December 20, 9:38 a.m.):
Perhaps our churches need to reconsider why we do mission trips. Yes, as individuals we must be responsive to the needs around us. But the primary locus of God’s activity in the world today is the local church, not the denomination or the association or the seminary or the missionary organization. Here is a point I would like to make crystal clear: We must not see ourselves as individuals. Jesus came to build His church. As His Body we are to “have the same attitude and the same love, live in harmony, and keep one purpose in mind” (Phil. 2:2). We are to “live as good citizens of heaven who reflect the value of the Good News about Christ” (1:27). We are to “work hard together to spread the Good News,” just as Paul and Timothy had done (2:22).
‘We must not see ourselves as individuals.’ This is true in missions (the context of Dave Black’s quote), but it’s also so true for so many (all?) aspects of life as a follower of Jesus Christ. There is a huge difference between a church as a community or family and a church as a group of individuals.
The inclusion of all in the ministry
James at “Idle musings of a bookseller” is publishing excerpts from a book called Company of the Committed which was written by Elton Trueblood almost 50 years ago. (I always enjoy readings James’ excerpts and his comments.) For example, see this post called “Lay Ministry.”
Notice this important statement about “clergy” and “laity”:
The only kind of lay ministry which is worth encouraging is that which makes a radical difference in the entire Christian enterprise. To be truly effective it must erase any difference in kind between the lay and the clerical Christian. The way to erase the distinction, which is almost wholly harmful, is not by the exclusion of professionals from the ministry, as anticlerical movements have tended to do, but rather by the inclusion of all in the ministry. The expanded dictum is that in the ministry of Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, neither layman nor cleric, but all are one in Christ Jesus.†– Company of the Committed, page 62
Could this distinction between “clergy” and “laity” be one of the problems in seeing mutuality (i.e. interdependent relationships) in churches?
What or who?
I’ve been thinking along with Jeff’s thoughtful thought for the day. Why not think along with us?
Today, we determine whether someone is part of the church by what they believe…yet when the church began, the determining factor for who was part of the church was Whom they believed in.
Making Disciples with Paul
Art at “Church Task Force” has put together a great series of articles concerning making disciples and planting churches. (Are these different activities?) For example, consider his article “Rediscovering Paul’s Church Planting Strategies.”
Art finds seven “observations” from examining Paul’s example in Scripture, “which would be considered ridiculous strategies by the church planting movements in the West today.”
- On average, churches were planted and self-sufficient in 12 months
- The work was unfunded, accomplished by bivocational servants
- Paul planted multiple churches regionally, often from a base camp church in a major city (churches that planted churches)
- There was follow-up by Paul and/or itinerants as well as letters to continue to support and encourage, especially through troubles
- Whole households were being converted, not just individuals
- After an initial time in weeks or months of reaching new disciples, they are left on their own as a church without formal leadership for months
- Paul enlists additional workers from among the new churches as local elders (on average with 6 to 12 months experience as believers) and as itinerants (with about 2 years experience as believers). They all share the same focus (see Eph 4:11-16).
Do you see also see these “observations” in Paul’s example? Should we take these into consideration when making disciples (planting churches) today?
James D. G. Dunn on the Lord’s dinner
Judging from these quotes, I think James D. G. Dunn’s Beginning from Jerusalem will be work perusing:
We should not fail to note that ‘the Lord’s Supper’ was a complete meal, which would begin, we may suppose, in Jewish fashion, with the blessing, breaking and sharing of the bread. Paul’s own description is explicit that the sharing of the cup took place ‘after the meal’, at the close of the meal (11.25). The point is obscured by the fact that the term ‘supper’ in ‘the Lord’s Supper is an old fashioned term and now more misleading than helpfully descriptive. The term Paul uses in 11.20 is deipnon, which refers to the main meal of the day, eaten in the evening; ‘the Lord’s dinner’ would be a more accurate translation, however crassly it may ring in the modern ear. No doubt, a large part of the attractive the churches, as with associations generally, was the companionship (fellowship) and conviviality of these meals (not to mention a share in better food than many might be able to provide for themselves). The complete meal character of ‘the dinner of the Lord’ also carries an important theological corollary: to the extent that we can speak of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth as a sacramental meal – as we can (10.16) – a key consideration is that the sacramental character embraced the whole meal, beginning with the shared bread and ending with the shared cup. Integral to the religious character of the meal was its shared character; for Paul the whole meal was to be shared in conscious memory of Jesus’ last supper and, as in the earliest Jerusalem gatherings, probably in conscious continuation of Jesus’ own table-fellowship. (pg 645-646)
All this leaves unresolved the question whether unbelievers and outsiders were admitted to the Lord’s dinner. The implication of 14.23-24, that such could be present when believers came together as church, may apply only to gatherings for worship. At the same time, we should not assume that the shared meals had a specially sacred character that disbarred unbelievers and outsiders from sharing in them [cf. Rom. 14.6]. Was every shared meal ‘the Lord’s dinner’? Was the bread broken and the wine drunk at every meal ‘in remembrance’ of Jesus (11.24-25)? We have already noted the same ambiguity with regard to Luke’s references to the ‘breaking of bread’. And it would be unduly hasty to assume that the hospitality which a Christian couple like Aquila and Priscilla extended to fellow believers and others would have had a markedly different character (in their eyes) from the meals shared when the whole church gathered in one place. Whether or not the Lord’s table was seen as an evangelistic opportunity in these early years, we can be fairly confident that Christian hospitality did result in many guests and visitors coming to faith in the Lord of their hosts. (pg. 647)
(HT: Euangelion)
Examples and Models
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “Examples and Models.” In that post, I tried to explain how my course has changed from seeking “full time ministry” to seeking full time ministry. Of course, a few years before that, I thought that the only way to seek full time ministry was to be in “full time ministry.”
————————————————
I love the latest post by a new blogger, Trey from “One Man’s Journey“. The title of the post is “Walk Away for the Love of Christ?” I love his honest reflection and life-changing questions. I also see in his questions many of the questions that I started asking myself a few years ago. Here is an excerpt from Trey’s excellent post:
As my family and I sunk into a financial pit of despair, I began to read much in the realm of finance, investing, financial planning, and biblical financial stewardship. I grew to love this and can see many ways in which the average Christian and also the average church misuses the resources provided by God. I began to see myself as doing this sort of consultation work to families, small businesses, churches, and parachurch ministries once I gained the proper training. But what about seminary? What about my calling? What will my family think?
As previously, most issues discussed here have not been settled in my mind completely. I have been reminded in my prayer times that God certainly does not need me. He has managed eternity just fine before me and will do so long after I become one of saints on high. Also, why do I need the spotlight of an official pastor-elder of a local congregation? Can I not teach and serve in other ways just an important to the kingdom?
Several years ago, I also had this “calling”. Looking back, I think that God was calling me to a more committed life of serving himself and others – he was calling me to full-time ministry, although I don’t think he was calling me to “full-time ministry”. At the time, though, I only saw two options: 1) become a vocational pastor, or 2) become a missionary.
Why did I only see these two options? Well, those were the only two options that I saw modelled. These were the only examples that I saw of what it meant to serve God full-time. So, I picked one – vocational pastor – and did what I was supposed to do: I went to seminary. But, as my family will tell you, I struggled with the idea of being a full-time vocational pastor from day one. I did not think that this accurately reflected what God wanted from me, but I did not have any other categories, models, or examples to compare to.
I knew what God wanted from me: he wanted me to serve him and serve others in everything that I said and everything that I did. But, this couldn’t happen if I worked a regular job, right? I mean, regular people are distracted by work and commuting and co-workers and business trips and office parties. But, God didn’t want me to be distracted by these “secular” things, so I needed to give all of that up, go to seminary, get hired by a church in order that I could concentrate on “spiritual” things.
As Trey expressed in his blog post, I thought that the real work of God was done by those people who prominently stood before me each Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday evening, etc. These were the people who knew God and what God wanted from me and others and how to teach the Bible and how to put on Bible studies and where to find the lost people and when to schedule the Children’s program.
A strange thing happened on the way though. As I was happily preparing myself for just this type of “spiritual” vocation, I took my professors seriously, and I read Scripture to find the answers to my questions. It began with recognizing that Scripture does not call the Sunday morning routine “worship”. I asked myself, “If that’s not worship, then what is worship?” Again, I turned to Scripture for answers. From those answers, I was forced to ask other questions and search for more answers.
In fact, the more I studied and read and asked questions, the more I realized that the type of “spotlight servants” which Trey mentions – and to which I was aspiring – was not described in Scripture at all. In fact, I would suggest that “spotlight servants” are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter – in fact, all the books of the New Testament. Instead, Jesus calls all believers to be servants – not “spotlight servants”, but servants.
And, slowly, I began to understand that “vocational pastors” may be necessary to carry out what we typically see associated with church today. However, when we examine church in Scripture, we see that “vocational pastors” seem out of place. Instead, we see people shepherding as they work, and discipling wherever they are, and teaching in any context, and caring and comforting wherever they find people who are hurting. We find leaders who lead by example, not from the spotlight. We find elders who are mature and wise and known, not hired for their education and speaking abilities. We find prophets and teachers and apostles who are willing to dialog instead of monologue. We find disciples who are constantly and consistently attempting to live for Christ with the help of other brothers and sisters. We find that there is no secular and sacred divide. Through the indwelling Spirit, all things become sacred – every place becomes a sanctuary – every believer becomes a priest and a temple.
In other words, God can use me as his full-time servant when I am selling cars, or writing code, or running a business, or seeing patients. I can pastor while I am teaching in a school or college, or taking care of the home, or packing boxes, or delivering mail, or selling clothes. I can meet with other believers as the church in a church building, or in a restaurant, or in a park, or in a home, or in a car, or in an office. God was calling me – and he is calling others – into full-time service, wherever we are and whatever we’re doing.
It is my desire to live the rest of my life as an example of following God and serving him full-time in whatever vocation he provides for me. I hope that the believers who come along after me will see my example as another option when God calls them also.
That’s the way we learned it
Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” makes a good point in his post “Yeah but.” No, many times we don’t want to know what Scripture teaches. And, when we do know, it’s much more comfortable to conform Scripture to match our lives (through various hermeneutical tricks) than to conform our lives to Scripture.
It wasn’t long ago that I couldn’t imagine church without steeples, hymnals, staff, pews (or chairs in rows), Sunday School, children’s programs, men’s ministry, women’s ministry, tithes and offerings, dress clothes, pulpits, preachers, Youth groups, revivals, search committees, choirs, little plastic cups and little pieces of bread, discipleship programs, evangelism programs, etc.
Why? Because that’s the way I learned it. Scripture was always taught in light of what we did, not the other way around.
Plus, we were quite comfortable with the way things were, and it worked.