Stir Up One Another
Steven at “Biblically Speaking” has written a very good explanation of the term “stirring up” in Hebrews 10:24-25 in a post called “Let us consider how to stir… or provoke… one another“. He says:
I then got up and looked in my wife’s collegiate dictionary for the definition of stir.
This is what I found; disturb, rouse, foment, arouse, provoke, stimulate, goad, spur.
To be emotionally moved. To rouse from inactivity.So with these definitions lets look at the scripture.
Let us consider how to “provoke or rouse one another from inactivity” to love and good works.
You see how powerful that word stir is?
We as Christians come together in order to stir, rouse, provoke each other. It is not a passive word.
Steven is right. “Stir” (or “provoke” depending on your translation) is not a passive word. It is a word of action – helping one another move towards a life of love and good works, regardless of what our life has been like before.
So… are you stirring up?
What if they worked for support?
In keeping with my theme from this morning, I noticed a very interesting post from Gary at “{missional} space” called “A way around the IMB cutbacks“. Gary – an itinerant missionary himself – says the following:
What if instead of entering the field as a missionary on a platform you….got a real job in the host culture? Novel idea huh? There are some plus sides to it….no bureaucracy to deal with, no platforms to establish, and best of all….you get to do a real job and develop relationships the same way you would in the US.
I’m beginning to wonder if the best itinerant missionaries wouldn’t be those who would come into a location with a marketable skill. Gary even offers a website that helps people find jobs overseas.
What would be the negative implications of this? What would be positive about it?
No Senior/Teaching Pastor?
My friend Maël from “The Adventures of Maël & Cindy” is writing a series concerning whether or not the “senior pastor” role is biblical. His first post is called “The Senior Pastor – Introduction“. Look through his blog for the other posts.
I do not intend to discuss his premise or his arguments. I’ll just say for the moment that I agree with him that a separate “senior pastor” or “teaching pastor” role is not biblical. Instead, I want to discuss something related.
After reviewing the literature on the topic, Maël lists four options:
- The first view is the most common one: the senior pastor is the leader (some may even say ‘head’ or ‘under-shepherd’) of the congregation. The other pastors, usually called associate pastors or ministers with specific designations, help him in the work of his ministry. He is the main shepherd of the flock and the main preacher for the congregation… He might seek advice from the other pastors and be very open to their thoughts and suggestions, but ultimately ‘the buck stops with him’. Throughout this series, this view of the role of a senior pastor will be referred to as the ‘traditional’ view.
- The second view is similar to the first one: the senior pastor is still the leader of the congregation with associate pastors helping him in the work of his ministry. He is still the main shepherd of the flock and the main preacher for the congregation. However, in view number two, unlike in the traditional view, when there is room for pastoral decision making and vision casting, his vote counts as only one among equally weighted votes with the other pastors… This view will be referred to as the ‘leader of leaders’ view…
- The third view is called by Strauch the ‘first among equals’ view. Strauch pictures the difference between the senior pastor and the other pastors as being one of function, not title. The senior pastor is “the natural leader, the chief speaker, the man of action;” he challenges, energizes, strengthens, and ignites the group. In this view there is the sense that this leader is the leader because of his personality and outgoing attitude. He is probably the most outspoken of the pastors and possibly the main teacher also, but he is not officially designated the senior pastor. Note that the difference between views two and three can be very subtle. While it seems that the outworking of both views is similar, the fundamental difference is in the need to officially name this separate office and the implications which develop because of it.
- The fourth view is one void of a human senior pastor altogether. In this view, all the pastors are equal in the eyes of the people and equal in practice. Some advocates of this view will purport that Jesus Christ is the rightful senior pastor of any congregation.
While Maël doesn’t name this last view, I’m going to call it the “no senior pastor view”.
Now, my questions. Have you been part of churches with any of these structures? What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of each of these views? How do you think the “no senior pastor view” would work?
Clergy and Laity
Bryan at “aGCb” has published a great quote in his post “Rethinking ‘Clergy/Laity’ (pt. 1)“. Here is the quote:
“The vast majority of Christians have not been helped to see that who they are and what they do every day in schools, workplaces or clubs is significant to God, nor that the people they spend time with in those everyday contexts are the people God is calling them to pray for, bless and witness to. So we pray for our Sunday school teachers but not, for example, for schoolteachers working 40 hours a week in schools among children and adults who on the whole don’t know Jesus. We pray for overseas missionaries but not for Christian electricians, builders, shop assistants and managers in our towns… We have simply not been envisioned, resourced and supported to share the Good News of Jesus in our everyday contexts.” – Tim Chester, Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community, 36
I’m working on a post now about the relationship between teaching and leadership. I think it is dangerous to associate teaching/preaching with leaders, as if teaching/preaching should be the primary responsibility of leaders.
What would happen – in the spirit of this quote – if teaching/preaching was seen as the everyday responsibility of all followers of Jesus Christ?
Fellowship, smellowship
Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” has written two excellent posts concerning the topic of fellowship.
In the first post, called “Now that sounds like Biblical fellowship“, he describes a church meeting that he heard about from a believers from Hong Kong:
Believers gathered in their home starting at around 8:00 AM and then spent the rest of the day in fellowship, having meals, meeting one on one, listening to preaching, Bible studies, spending time with one another. He said the last person would leave at around 8:30 PM.
Arthur responds with this:
Why do we think we are so sophisticated in America that we have moved beyond this sort of fellowship? It is fine for those people over there but we can get the same thing in our expensive buildings and scheduled programs, we don’t want anything unscripted. Have we moved beyond Biblical fellowship and found something better?
Good question, Arthur. I think we’ve definitely moved beyond biblical fellowship, but I wouldn’t call it “something better”.
And, I think Arthur would agree. Why? Because in his next post, called “Membership or fellowship: Which is the greater need today?“, he suggests that “membership” has replaced fellowship in importance in the church today. Of course, he also notes that other things – such as corporate prayer – have also been replaced. I think Arthur says it best in his conclusion:
Can we assume that church gatherings have fellowship and prayer? Does meeting in the same room and listening to someone else pray on your behalf count as Biblical fellowship and prayer? A once a month sparsely attended potluck dinner is a poor substitute to devoting ourselves to fellowship and the breaking of bread. More to the point, can we have a “healthy” church where fellowship and prayer is given only passing thought? My point is not a criticism of 9 Marks but just to point out how easy it is to make assumptions that are unwarranted by reality and focus on areas that are at best peripheral issues and at worst are merely human traditions.
We have got to get this right in the church. All the Reformation in the world will not change the church if we fail to get past the traditions and labels we have erected. May I suggest we focus on fixing the fundamentals before we start tinkering with traditions?
Good suggestion, Arthur. One note of warning… if you focus on the fundamentals, you will be labeled a “minimalist”. But, don’t worry about that label; just keep focusing on the fundamentals.
A "missionary" agrees
Last week, I wrote a post called “Staying Home = Missionary” in which I said that every believer should see himself or herself as a minister and a missionary. The only difference is that some are called by God to leave their home, while others are called by God to remain at home. Our responsibilities to serve others and proclaim the good news are the same, whether we stay home or travel.
Now, I’m glad to see that a “real missionary” has posted something similar. Ernest at “Missions, Misunderstood“, has encouraged all believers to see themselves as missionaries in a post called “Everyone A Missionary?“
He writes:
The division has resulted in “that’s not my job calling†on both sides of the divide. Many missionaries today see the church as a major distraction from their focus on evangelizing unbelieving people. Most churches outsource missions to a homely couple they send money to and pray for once a year.
The new paradigm is simple: all Christians are missionaries. They must be, because none of us are at “home.†Even if your ministry is to a group of people that you grew up with- a group that looks, talks, and acts just like you- you must recognize that your transformation in Christ necessarily makes you an outsider- a foreigner- to even your own culture. You can’t afford to assume that you are ministering in your own context. You don’t have a context in the world anymore.
He later says that every believer is a missionary, but every believer is not a good missionary. What kind of missionary are you?
What does it take?
You know, on the one hand, I really enjoy reading the blog posts over at “The M Blog“. Guy continually writes post which remind us that believers can follow God simply and relationally. It doesn’t take all of that stuff that we usually add. One of his latest posts, “What you need to know to plant a church“, is no exception.
For example, Guy says:
Sometimes my head spins at how complex we have made church planting. I am overwhelmed with all the books, studies, graphs, surveys, conferences, blogs, methodologies, strategies, experts, and current discussions taking place. The implication seems to be if you don’t have a PhD and 4 years apprenticeship with a CP guru in Asia, you simply won’t make it to first base in planting a church.
Instead, Guy quotes Bill Lollar as saying there are only 6 basic principles:
- Recognize that every Christian is “called†to communicate the Gospel message wherever they currently live and work. That’s the “Great Commission,†so why look for a lesser one? You don’t need anyone else’s permission, since God trumps everyone, and you certainly don’t need an assessment to share the Gospel.
- Continue in your present occupation (1 Corinthians 7:17-23), so you can meet your obligations, particularly the one that requires YOU to take care of your family (1 Timothy 5:8) and share with those in need (Romans 12:13; Ephesians 4:28). Ministry is not a career path for those seeking a comfortable salary, benefits, and a retirement plan!
- Act on principle number one and begin sharing the Gospel with your neighbors, friends, co-workers, and family members. There is usually no need to go anywhere else, because your world is already full of people who don’t know Jesus! Yes, it’s okay to relocate, as long as you remember principle number two OR a group of believers voluntarily agrees to support you as a missionary in another culture where it is unlikely that you would be allowed to take jobs away from the indigenous people group to whom you are being sent.
- Since God has promised to provide a harvest for those who labor like this in His vineyard, begin to disciple/teach those who express an interest in spiritual things, expecting the power of the Gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit to bring them to repentance and faith.
- Meet together with these new believers on a regular basis (Hebrews 10:24-25), thinking of creative ways in which you can stimulate one another to love and minister to others, as well as encouraging each other in the Christian journey.
- Teach every new believer how to follow the above principles!
Yes. These are simple principles that every believers can follow. In fact, every believer SHOULD be following these six principles.
So, like I said, on the one hand, I love reading Guy’s simple explanations of what it takes to be and lead the church.
On the other hand, I sometimes hate reading Guy’s posts. Why? Because his posts remind me that these simple principles are also my responsibility.
RT France on Community in Matthew 18
Our church is continuing to study the Gospel of Matthew. Currently, we’re studying chapter 18. For the last two weeks, my friend, Maël, has read the following quote from RT France (see his post “Community of believers – R.T. France“):
The portrait of the church which thus emerges is an attractive one. Status-consciousness and formally constituted authority have no place. The focus is on the relationship and mutual responsibility of all members of the community, each of whom matters, and yet all of whom must regard themselves only as ‘little ones.’ The resultant pastoral concern and action is not the preserve of a select few, but is the responsibility of each individual disciple, and, where necessary, of the whole group together. The structure is informal, but the sense of community is intense. And overarching it all is the consciousness of the presence of Jesus and of the forgiveness and pastoral concern of ‘your Father in heaven.’
What do you think? Is France correct? Is this the “portrait of the church” in Matthew 18? Is it the “portrait of the church” in the New Testament? Is it the “portrait of the church” among those believers you know?
Intimate fellowship with strangers?
I love reading posts that I’d wish that I’d written. Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” has written one of those called “Incomplete Christians“. Arthur was listening to a famous speaker, author, etc. talk about the “local church”. Arthur agreed with this man’s focus on a local gathering of believers and replied like this:
The local church assembly is vital and eminently Biblical. Those who feel they can just stay home by themselves and be just fine are ignorant of their own need for community and the Bible’s teaching on the fellowship of the saints. So much of the New Testament is written in the context of the local assembly that it is hard to imagine a scenario where Christians gathering together frequently and purposefully is absent.
But, Arthur also started thinking practically about what this man was saying. Why? Because this man normally speaks to an auditorium filled with thousands of people. Is this the kind of local, intimate fellowship that we see in Scripture? Arthur continues:
My concern is that we have so imprinted on our minds what “church” looks like that we can read things like Acts 2:42 and talk about intimate, one-another fellowship and think that we see that in an auditorium of thousands of people… When we look into the New Testament and see where the local assembly is spoken of, what we see is fellowship, intimacy, familial relationships. While folks in huge assemblies… are getting great teaching, teaching I would love to hear every week, are they getting fellowship as well?… Great teaching yes, great fellowship no. At least not the kind of fellowship we see in the local assembly in the New Testament.
I agree with Arthur about the absence of fellowship. Of course, fellowship can be absent from a small group of believers as well, but at least fellowship is possible among a small group. In reality, when we meet with the church, we’re usually together with a bunch of strangers. It is impossible share intimate fellowship with strangers.
I would simply add this question: Is teaching (week in and week out) without an intimate relationship between the teacher and others really “great teaching” from a biblical perspective?
(By the way, if you want to know which “great teacher” Arthur was listening to and talking about, then read his post. I decided to keep the names out of my post in order to keep the post general.)
More on calling and gifting
James at “Idle musings of a bookseller” continues to quote from Kung’s book Why Priests? One of his latest posts is called “A calling is the requirement“. He quotes:
…it must be said that charism in the strict sense, i.e., a calling from God in the Spirit of Jesus Christ, stands by itself and does not flow from the institution. It is a free calling to a free ministry in the Church, which the Church leadership can suppress or even worse extinguish only at its own expense. A thoroughgoing direct or indirect “bureaucratizing” of a charism contradicts the New Testament. As the New Testament shows, a charism has no need at all of prior legitimation by a Church institution. On the contrary, there are in fact institutions and representations of institutions who have nothing charismatic about them: for instance, ordained Church functionaries who carry out their ministry mechanically and show no sign of a genuine calling of of the Spirit of Christ.—Why Priests?, page 87
May those of us who are leaders in the church never find ourselves suppressing or extinguishing the work of the Spirit through another believer. May we never seek to build an institution which has nothing charismatic (of the Spirit) about it.