BreedingFerrets.net

Growing up in Rock Hill, South Carolina I remember the conversation around the filming of the movie “The Patriot”.  Since one of the headquarters for filming was in Rock Hill and in the surrounding countryside, many of my friends went to see if they could watch the filming or even make their way into the movie.  Many auditioned to be extras in the Mel Gibson thriller.

One such friend boldly came back and reported that he had made the movie…He was going to be in “The Patriot.”  While somewhat hesitant, I was excited to see his role in the movie.  With anticipation we sat down to watch the movie and braced ourselves for his appearance.  As the movie neared the point at which he was going to make his cameo, we waited with anticipation. 

Our anticipation was shattered when he exclaimed, “There I was.  Did you see me?”  I was intrigued.  Had I missed something?  I know that I blinked, but that could not have been it.  He rewound the movie and showed it again.  This time I know I did not blink.  And yet, nothing.  Finally, he played it again in slow motion while pointing out that in the far right hand corner of the screen was the back of my buddy’s head. 

It was then that I learned the true meaning of an “extra.”  Yeh, he was in the movie, but not really.  The leading actors and supporting cast were hard to miss, but not the extras.  They were easily passed by in preference for the real stars of the show.

I get the impression that in many churches and ministries in our land the gospel plays the role of an “extra”. It is there, somewhat visible, but rarely heard from and it certainly never plays an important or recognizable role in the film. 

On the other hand, when I read the Scriptures, it seems like the gospel is the leading actor in the film – not Paul, not Moses, not Abraham, but the gospel as revealed through Jesus Christ.  It seems that everywhere you look in Scripture you find someone pointing to the central message of the gospel as the foundation for the local church (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2:2; Gal. 6:14; Acts 5:42; 10:36; Eph. 2:1-10; Luke 24:26; Gal. 3:21-24; Heb. 2:10). By the gospel, the Scriptural writers refer to the reality of human sinfulness and separation from a holy God, and the offer of salvation through faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross (John 1:12-13; Eph. 1:7; 2:8-10; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:18-19).  “In line with the truth of the gospel” (Gal.2:14). It seems that the apostles were consistently at war in their day attempting to defend and protect the centrality of the gospel in the church. Luther says, “The truth of the Gospel is the principle article of all Christian doctrine….Most necessary is it that we know this article well, teach it to others, and beat it into their heads continually.” (on Gal.2:14f)

In fact, it was the gospel (i.e. the good news or evangel) which gave the evangelical movement its name.  Being an evangelical Christian used to mean that one adhered to and believed in the core tenants of the gospel message,

Even as I write this post, I am amazed that it even needs to be written.  I mean, it seems that the idea that a proper understanding of the gospel and its centrality to life is foundational to the definition of a church.  Taking it out is utterly foolish, somewhat equivalent to taking a ball out of football or animals out of a zoo.  Once those are taken out, the entire thing falls apart. It seems that modern evangelicals cannot even agree on the nature and message of the gospel or whether it is important to faith at all.   In modern vernacular, the evangelical movement that once was founded on the gospel is not a pejorative description for a group of closed-minded Republicans.

How did this happen?  How did the leading cast get relegated to the role of an extra in the local church?

It seems that in a desire to make evangelical Christianity more appealing to the masses, Christianity has lost what should be its defining characteristic, namely, the gospel as revealed through the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Whether in an attempt to garner academic respectability or develop worldly approval, the gospel was shifted from the leading cast to a supporting role to barely in the movie at all. I often laugh when I read the core values of many churches and “originality” is included.  If my goal is to promote the gospel, which is the leading cast of the redemptive mission of Jesus for thousands of years, then the last thing I want to be is original. 

The gospel is a closed hand issue – there can be no compromise or division here.

§  A church without the gospel is simply not a church.

§  A pastor who does not preach the gospel is not a pastor.

§  A Christian who does not have faith in the gospel is not a Christian

Here we must also be cautious.  My point is not that the gospel must be included in the church for it to be a church (often the gospel is included), but rather, that the gospel must be central. 

It is not simply in having the gospel that one is rightly founded, but in having the gospel in the right place.

This must mean that nothing else can take the leading role in the church:

§  Not social justice

§  Not political activism

§  Not leadership strategy

§  Not cultural savvy

§  Not pastor’s personalities

§  Not anything other than the gospel.

Before the church of Jesus Christ will once again have major implications in our culture, the gospel must return to the leading role.

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.

I think they are stupid.

“To be honest”                                   Do you typically lie?

“In my opinion”                                  Who else’s opinion do you normally give?

“In the final analysis”                         Then why are you still talking?

“Subject to Availability”                      Is there anything not subject to availability?

“Without Further Delay”                      Aren’t you delaying me further by saying that?

“Willy Nilly”                                        Is that a person’s name or just exposing your ignorance?

“A rose by any other name”                Would no longer be a rose.

I think they are stupid because I have no clue what they mean.

“As beautiful as the day is long”        My days are short, so is it ugly?

“Be there or be square”                      If I don’t show up am I a circle?

“Cat got your tongue”                        No. never.  I hate cats and they would never touch my tongue

“Clean your clock”                             How does a timing devise relate to making a football tackle?

“Even Stevens”                                   Is he related to the stunt man?

“Fly by the Seat of Your Pants”          What about wings? A plane? Or a magic carpet?

“If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times.”  What if you only said it 995 times?

You know what I mean?  Stupid clichés that people use all the time and yet I have no clue what they mean.  This one’s my favorite:

“You are what you eat.”

Well I like Kraft Macaroni and Cheese with a little 2% milk.  I eat it right out of the pot, sometimes with a side of pinto beans.  What does that make me?  Fat? Sloppy? Cheesy?

Clichés are not my thing, so I am surprised to be giving you one for my blog today.  However, I understand this cliché because it is lifted right from the pages of Scripture.  It goes like this:

“You are what you worship.”

Fortunately, I didn’t make this one up.  The Psalmist tells us this one is true.

“Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands.  They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.  They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell.  They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat.  Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them.”  Ps. 115:4-8

Clearly the Psalmist does not think much of the things that you and I worship. In fact his description is that they are impotent to meet any of our expectations.

And, that’s not the bad news.  The bad news is in the last phrase: “Those who make them become like them.”    He says that we become what we worship.  In other words, the things that we worship direct the trajectory of our lives and ultimately determine the type of person that you and I develop into.

Latin scholars had a maxim by which they expressed this concept: lex orandi, lex credenda, lex vivendi.  The statement literally says that the law of prayer (what we worship) leads to the law of belief (what we believe to be true) which leads to the law of life (how we live).  More succinctly we can say that what we worship determines what we believe which shapes how we live.

We take on the qualities and characteristics of what we worship.  As a result, it is important that we think about some of the characteristics of the gospel substitutes that we worship.  Here are a few:

1.      Temporal

Have you ever known one of your gospel substitutes to last?  No.  That is the folly of gospel substitutes.  They always promise something that they can’t provide.  Be it lust, power, pride, anger, or whatever, it never provides the fulfillment that you thought it would.  As Dr. Christopher Wright says, “False gods fail. That is their only truth. For although false gods never fail to fail, it seem humans never fail to forget that this is indeed the case” (Dr. Christopher Wright, The Mission of God, p. 171). And if you worship these gods you will become just like them – you will promise something that you can’t fulfill due to your faulty worship.  Maybe that is the underlying cause of the epidemic divorce rates, absentee fathers, and moral compromise.  We, like them, always fail.

2.      Lifeless

False gods give the appearance of life while lacking the reality.  People become convinced that gospel substitutes actually possess the life they are looking for, but in the end the false gods reveal their true, dead nature. Same with you.  If you worship false gods long enough you will prove the reality of your death by your actions.  While you may give the appearance of life – nice marriage, well adjusted kids, smiles at the right time, you might be just like your gods. We, like them, are lifeless.

3.      Powerless

We think that these gospel substitutes are going to come through for us.  If we only had a happy marriage, a life free of pain, more money, people who respected me, or children who obeyed then I would have the life I desire.  However, like all false gods, these objects of our sinful worship lack the power to provide that which our hearts long for.  We, like them, become powerless.

4.      Fragile

False gods break so easily.  Drop a golden calf on the ground and what happens?  It shatters into a million pieces.  It’s sad when a golden cow shatters, but I have seen much worse.  Our world is littered with people whose lives shattered due to their poor worship.  The storms of life came and because they worshipped at the feet of the god of comfort, fulfillment, happiness, or security their lives crumbled as well.  We, like them, become incredibly fragile.

Maybe this is why the first commandment says that we are not to have any other gods besides the one true God.  Far from an unreasonable command, this command truly has our best interest at heart because it protects our very humanity from being like the things we worship.  If I am going to be like someone, I would much rather be like the One True God than some silly gospel substitute.

Watch out.

“You are what you worship”

TSHusker at Doctrine Matters has put together a reading list for children and youth - categorized by age.  Be careful not to allow yourself to read this through a modern lens that tries to dumb-down everthing we do in the church to make it friendly to “seekers”.  You might be shocked at what your 5th grader can read and understand.  Their work here is outstanding.

http://doctrinematters.blogspot.com/2008/07/essential-reading-curriculum-church.html 

The words are so familiar: 

“Jesus Loves me this I know

For the Bible tells me so..”