BreedingFerrets.net

As many of you know, my wife and I are in the process of moving to Greenville, South Carolina to plant Renewal Church on the southeast side of the city.  In light of that transition, we have launched a web site for the church plant at www.renewalupstate.com.  On this site you will find all the information about the church plant as well as my personal blog which will be a spin off of my comments on Breeding Ferrets as they relate to the local church.  Thanks for checking out what we are doing.

Matt Rogers

matt@renewalupstate.com

Sometimes when I hear people in my generation talk about God in general and the church in particular, I am embarrassed.  Kinda like that feeling you get when you watch someone on stage forget their lines.  I don’t know whether to giggle or puke, but I know that I am uncomfortable. 

The conversations are endless in their redundancy…Statements such as these:

·         “Why can’t people just love Jesus?”

·         “I like God, but I don’t like the Church.”

·         “Denominations make me mad.  Why can’t people just agree?”

·         “Let’s just make a difference in the world (end poverty, curb homelessness, etc.).”

·         “Forget the church, house church is the way to go…”

I don’t know if other people get uncomfortable with these statements, but they scare me.  They scare me because they are the fruit of a misunderstanding of the message of the gospel and the purpose of the church.  Or more appropriately, they are evidence of someone who may not have deeply considered the truth claims of Scripture and how best to evidence them in our world.

In great contrast to the classic work of CS Lewis, today’s Mere Christianity is a cultural fad of minimalistic Christianity without any solid foundation or doctrinal elaboration. 

Again, I find Carl Trueman helpful at this point:

“Salvation does not depend upon the individual’s possession of an elaborate doctrinal system or a profound grasp of intricate and complex theology.  Yet this is not my point.  What I am claiming is that mere Christianity, a Christianity which lacks this doctrinal elaboration, is an insufficient basis either for building a church or for guarantying the long-term stability of the tradition of the church.”

Carl Trueman, “Minority Report”

Living next to a college campus, I see this trend often.  The typical rallying cry of parachurch ministries and many so-called non-denominational churches lies in their attempt to transcend natural denominational boundaries to impact people for the cause of the kingdom.  The problem is not in this goal, but in its implications.  By removing doctrine from the formula for a church or ministry, faith in Jesus and association with the church becomes such a broad umbrella that almost anybody can fit under it.

The question is whether or not this is wise or realistic.  Can you remove theology and doctrine from the life of the church and still have a church or ministry?   For example, is there such a thing as non-denominational church?

In one sense, yes.  churches can chose to not associate with a denominational camp and, for multiple purposes, choose to carve their own path.  However, in a more important sense, no.  Denominations exist because people are forced to make theological claims.   All churches must make theological claims.  Therefore, the theological claims to which one holds must serve as the foundation for association with any church or ministry. 

The underlying motive behind most non-denominational, non-doctrinal movements is a desire to just reach people. In order to just reach people you must cater to the American consumerism that makes doctrinal minimalism possible.  It is easier to attract a wide audience to something that lacks theological nuance and complexity, than it is to attract them to a robust doctrine and healthy church.  

Mark Driscoll illustrates this to his church using an open hand and a closed hand.  In the closed hand are all the theological issues that are a non-negotiable for him and those that join Mars Hill.  In the open hand are those issues on which there can be disagreement and debate while still having unity in association.  The question is still:  Who or what determines what theological claims go in what hand?

To this question, my generation has answered by placing almost nothing in the closed hand and leaving everything in the open hand. It is all up for debate:

·         What is man’s condition?

·         How is man reconciled to God?

·         What is the church and how is it to be led?

These are just a few of the questions that many of my peers have placed in the open hand.   And in so doing, they have created a massive umbrella and attempted to rally the troops.  But they have simply rallied the troops to a group gathering that stands for little or nothing. 

In my opinion, this is why social justice issues are so central to younger evangelicals today.  There is no question that social justice causes have been neglected by the church in the past.  However, there is also little doubt that social justice issues are the easiest issues to get most within the church to verbally agree to.  Should we feed the poor? Yes, certainly.  Should we give to disaster relief?  Yes, again.  The only issue here is motivating people to actually do it (something many within the church fail to do).

However, when you get to more central theological issues (who is God, what is man’s problem, how is man reconciled to God, what is the nature of the church, who should lead the church) it is much more difficult to find consistent assent.  Start talking about substitutionary atonement and you are likely to get much fewer amens than preaching on loving hurting people.  Talk about God’s sovereignty and you are likely to get an answer that basically says “that’s above my pay grade,” but homelessness, I can handle that. 

It seems that there is within Christianity a natural gravitational pull to the lowest common denominator and the biggest umbrella.  Does this mean that you must be a part of a certain denomination?  No.  However, does it mean that you must have a Biblically informed doctrinal basis for what you believe about God, man, and sin. 

Find a broad enough umbrella that everyone can agree upon,

and before long you believe nothing.

So, over the next few weeks I am going to attempt to spell out what I believe are the essential core values for a church or ministry.  And, no Rihanna, I will not stand under your umbrella no matter how many times you ask!

Now that the Olympics have come and gone, I am left with many questions:

§  What is up with the Speedos? 

§  Is fast walking really a sport?

§  Can somebody please hold onto the baton?

But, the most pressing question of all in my mind is “What is up with synchronized swimming?”

My problem is not so much with the event.  It seems nice enough:  teamwork, splashing, and even some neat headdresses.  My problem is I can’t figure out whether it’s good or not.  On a really boring night during the Olympics, I actually watched these queens of the pool wow the audience with their clever frolicking.  But I didn’t get it.  They played sweet music, wore funny outfits, and did a routine.  Then the judges supposedly decide if the routine was “good” or not and give them an appropriate score.  I was shocked.  How do you score that?  What makes it good?  If I put on a funny headdress, got a few buddies, and kicked my legs around in a pool, would that make for a good synchronized swimming routine (don’t picture that – you will burn your corneas!)

My point is this – for any group, be it synchronized swimming, football, or the church, in order to have an effective scorecard for success you must know what defines the group.  What makes a synchronized swimming team a synchronized swimming team?  What makes a football team, a football team?  And for our purposes, what makes a church a church?

Now I know that this seems like an obvious question:  A church is a group of people who love Jesus and want other people to do the same.  While most would accept that simplistic definition, it seems that we have great diversity on how this should be carried out.  It seems that within the church world and without we struggle to define just what a church is and what it isn’t.  And I believe that this struggle to define the church leads to a struggle to properly assess whether or not the church is doing its job.

If we collected the current models of church and church planting practiced in the South and build the church in pyramid form, I believe it would look something like this:

Here’s how the argument goes:

1.  The system of the church is messed up and failing so therefore we need to deconstruct everything.  Go back to the basics.  Start over.  And where do we start?  Well the answer is simple: Just reach people.  The premise of this philosophy of the church is that reaching people for Jesus is the foundation on which the church should be built.  At this point, we give little thought to just what we are reaching people with and what we will do with them after we have “got ‘em”.

2.  So how do we reach people?  Well, here again the answer seems obvious.  Create a system of church that will best help us reach people.  For some, this looks like constructing the most impressive edifice around and blowing other churches out of the water with your style and charisma.  If we simply do church well enough they will come (or so the argument goes). For others this means getting rid of the church thing altogether.  The best way to reach people is to deconstruct the whole church thing.  No corporate gatherings.  No church leaders.  Birkenstocks and lattes is all we need.  Since they won’t come to the church we will go get them.    Regardless of which system a particular church chooses, most build their system around what they perceive to be the foundation.

3.  Once we have the mission, now it’s on to the ascetics.  Let’s build hip buildings, led by cool pastors, with edgy rock bands.  Let’s do it bigger, better, and badder than the next guy.  Maybe our pastor can even curse a couple of times just to increase the appeal.  Through clever tactics and emotional manipulation we can get people to leave their dry drab church down the corner and come and check out our cathedral.  Or, let’s get an angry ex-church guy.  We will send him out on the air-waves (through blogs and books).  Let’s let him bash the whole church thing.  Deconstruct everything.  People will be so drawn to Jesus by his bashing of the church.

4.  And then finally, once we have drained our energy, we will begin to talk about theology, doctrine, faith, and obedience to the living God.  The central question is what is the most basic and minimal standard of doctrine one must profess in order to be a part of the church and how quickly can we “claim” them.  We will baptize people, get them in a small group, and send them back out to the world telling them all the while “Just love Jesus”.  However we often still fail to define who Jesus is and what obedience to him looks like. 

While it seems that this is the model of the church being taught and practiced throughout our landscape, I have a growing problem:  I can’t seem to find that in the Bible.  In fact, the model presented in Scripture looks a lot more like this:

1.  The foundation of the church presented in the New Testament is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  It is through reconciliation with this God, that believers are built together into a living temple (1 Peter 2). This building is done by God based on the revealed word of God, which serves as the basis for all that follows. 

The foundation upon which the church is built is the redemptive plan of God.

For example, when I read Paul’s instructions to Timothy on the church I find:

“I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.  Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:  He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.”(1 Timothy 3:14-16). 

It seems that Paul may have a different scorecard for the church. In his writing he describes the church as a “pillar”and “a buttress of truth”.   It seems that Paul was incredibly concerned about the Truth and the role the church played in promoting it.  So much so that in this passage he spells out a basic doctrine and theology of Jesus – just to remind the church of whom they were following.  And this is not the only place.  It seems that Paul was a nut about training the church (and its elders) to have as primary the role of teaching and proclaiming Truth and avoiding and condemning all false claims.  So, if doctrine is primary, then the central questions for any church to be a church must be:

§  What is the gospel of Jesus Christ?  Who is he?  What was the purpose in His coming?  What did his death and resurrection accomplish for mankind? 

§  What is man’s problem?  How is sin dealt with?

§  How is man brought into a right relationship with God?

§  What is man’s role in the redemption of humanity?

§  What are the non-negotiables of our faith?

§  How is the church to be led?

§  How do we promote holiness in the lives of our people?  How do we measure true growth?

§  What has He called the church to be and do?

2.  Once the correct doctrine of the church is in place, then one is equipped to ask how the church is to go about partnering with God in his redemptive plan.   This allows the theology of the church to drive the mission of the church and not the mission to drive the theology.  Using this concept, the pyramid changes.  People properly grounded in faith in the living God as proclaimed in Word of God are the focus.  As they grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus, people are then sent on mission to partner with God in His redemptive mission in our world. 

3.  The doctrine of the church and the mission of the church allow for a system of church to develop that promotes the mission and doctrine.  Now, don’t be deceived.  Many will argue that the problem is the system and if we just get rid of the system, then we will have a church.  However, the system (in and of itself) is not the problem.  Systems should, and in fact must, exist. 

Systems aren’t the problem – Stupid systems are the problem.

With the proper theology and mission in place, we can then move the system from one in which people are trained that Sunday morning is the evangelistic expression of the local church, to one in which they are taught that they are the missional expression of the local church each and every day.  Proper elder/pastor leadership at this point can allow the church develop a system that is a proper expression and complement to the redemptive mission of God.

4.  With an accurate system in place for how best to accomplish the redemptive mission of God, we can then ask what a proper, cultural expression of the church would look like in our land.  What aesthetics would promote, and not hinder, the church from being a reflection of its Savior?  In what ways does the culture of one’s local church affect how one should express the church in that location?  With the proper foundation in place, this final building block is given support and shape by the preceding blocks, and we do not find ourselves is a position where we allow cultural tastes to affect the gospel.

What is secondary in the minds of the leaders will become tertiary in the lives of the congregation.   If doctrine is relegated to the supporting cast behind the mission, system, and aesthetics it will not be long before the people in our congregation will dismiss it altogether.

Baseball’s trading deadline came and went this week with the typical shuffle of overhyped and overpaid players all attempting to make a run for the World Series. Outside of Stuart Scott and Colin Cowherd, I am not sure anyone really noticed or cared. Except me. Yes, I am that sports geek that analyzes ESPN2, listens to The Herd in my truck, and secretly fantasizes about being a basketball commentator after Dicky V hangs it up.

While I love sports, professional sports trades make me angry. As soon as I begin to pull for one team, the star player is shipped out to the West coast to play for a team that I hate, and now I am left with a goofy looking, lanky, overpaid scrub. And the trades don’t make any sense. A great player is traded for four players I have never heard of, the proverbial “player to be named later” and some money. What?

In spite of the stupidity of many trades in American professional sports, trades don’t get any better than one made by a soccer team in Romania. The Romanian second division soccer club, UT Arad, sold a player to another team in exchange for 15 kilograms of meat. And to make matters worse, the player who was traded resigned before ever playing a game for his new team. The coach is quoted as saying: “We are upset because we lost twice – firstly because we lost a good player and secondly because we lost our team’s food for a whole week.”

Stupid trades are commonplace today: both in the sporting arena and in a place you would not think to look – your life. It seems that this concept of a trade forms the central metaphor Paul uses to explain what humanity has done to God. In the first chapter of his treatise on the gospel to the church at Rome he writes:

21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Romans 1:18-25

Read the rest of this entry »

The words are so familiar: 

“Jesus Loves me this I know

For the Bible tells me so..”