Extemporaneous Ramblings

What a flash point worship music has become! On the other hand, it has apparently always been thus.

In writing about church focus, concerning theology and doctrine, I considered worship music to be a side issue simply involving preferences. However, the comments on “What is the cure, Doctor?” indicate it merits a separate thread. It is clearly both a dividing line and a divisive issue for many congregations. Congregation do, and have, split based solely on animosity over this issue.

Anecdotal evidence would indicate that one major dividing line is drums, as in a modern drum set. The appearance of this instrument actually results in the summary exit of some people from not only the service but the congregation. Worse, I heard a Pastor remark on this topic that the congregation was being held back by such people and they should just go quietly if they couldn’t embrace the changes (hard to believe but that is actually what was informally said).

Thinking about it, the implications appear to extend well beyond my original thoughts of simple preference. What I preseumed could be solved by simply blending styles and alternate presentation seems to indicate issues beyond that.

One suggestion might be that this scenario is a demonstrable symptom of the movement of the church into functioning as an entertainment medium. In that scenario, the assumption that would follow (as with any service provider) would be that the church has a responsibility to service each attendee’s need for a joyous and uplifting experience. The existence of any discomfort would be counter-productive. Notice that one of the undergirding assumptions here is that the responsibility for the experience is placed solely on the church, not on the congregant. This reflects the societal issues appearing today in many other forums with the emergence of entitlement rights. This could be taken to illustrate the church and expectations of its responsibilities mirroring societal change, and therefor completely separate from any Biblical expectation. Many would say this is good and that entitlement is driving positive developments. In most respects, I would not be among them.

A related area of exploration could be around the function of the church in supporting and providing comfort for the member or adherent. Is the worship service for us or for the Lord? Without doubt most Evangelicals would say that it is for Him, but is  that the reality? Isn’t the reality that the church is often views as if it is for us? In all of this, where does simple individual preference come in, and to what degree?

Lastly for now, let us move to the Pastoral comment on naysayers. Now, I do not doubt that the comment was serious, and in context am also quite sure that the person it was said directly to (not me) agreed in principle (evidenced by their comments in other venues). But however true it might be for them, it was pretty appalling to hear it stated out loud. It would appear that those who left were likely better justified then they realized. It could could also be legitimately projected that there were likely other people and other issues that would eventually fall to the same solution eventually. So the question needs to be asked, is ‘my way or the highway’ a legitimate response in any of these situations?

There - that’s a start. Again, for me this seems peripheral to the foundational issues, but I could be missing something. I have my preferences and some things appeal to them and others don’t. But we will see what shakes out in comments…

Following-on from the article and related comments on Preaching and Small Groups, I think that I should reiterate the implications. I see the effect on small groups as peripheral, as with music. Though the issues can be flash points that are sensitive, I am interested in the the larger (and for me at least) more critical issue of underlying foundational knowledge within the congregational body that support true Christian assembly over time.

The proposition for small groups is merely that that without the underlying foundation being properly prioritized and consistently dealt with, the small groups are caste into a role that they are not equipped (through their set-up, not due to any lack of sincerity or intent) to fulfill. As has been suggested, if they function to increase the depth of and expand upon foundational preaching and doctrinal exploration, that is wonderful. Or alternately, if they are defined to fulfill the acknowledged need for a solid forum for fellowship combined with some biblical or devotional sharing, again great. However, when they are caste in the role of the primary educational forum for foundational matters, and subsequently left to their own devices and development by the leadership with respect to approach, curriculum and direct support, then the overall situation is built more and more upon thin ice.

This brings the discussion around to an all too familiar theme, that of foundation, biblical and basic doctrinal literacy. A comment on the previous post began with the assumption of solid biblical preaching. Let us focus that to preaching based in and for the purpose of Biblical, foundational and doctrinal exposition. The tone and direction of the organization is likely to subsequently proceed from that, and there will be a priority on programs in support of those areas. Our refrain to-date, however, has been that the church in general is moving in precisely the opposite direction, with the focus on organizational growth and programs in support of that. In this case, the tone and direct will follow suit, away from the Biblical and doctrinal literacy. The foundational areas, in fact, will more and more come to be looked upon as arcane subjects suitable only for seminary debate, and not necessary for the general assembly of God’s people. Once paradigm that picks up steam, faith isolated to experiential evidence and with less and less foundational knowledge is not far behind. One may even hear the proposal that the two focus directions described are synonymous. The absurdity of that simply denies expression.

I would propose that this scenario is what we are seeing, and it should give us much pause when looked at with a view to the tribulations which we know will come, and which Scripture has implied will remove much of the experiential support through the tactics of Satan and the world. That this will come about is in not doubt in Revelations.

In conclusion, one would hope that the refocusing of congregational, and particularly leadership, priority on foundational matters, leaving the rest (for example, growth) to the Lord, will move towards a path more centered upon the Sovereignty of our Lord, with the people of God better equipped to weather the future.

Let us expand a bit on a couple of points. First “Preaching which is foundational and biblical at least 75% of the time. This means exposition, not excess commentary and particularly not application!”

Preaching and the Pulpit are the primary framework for the dissemination of congregational education. This alone is today likely a controversial proposition in many churches with the downloading of responsibilities to pastoral associates and preference group ministries. The pulpit message should be for expository education in the central issues of biblical literacy, theological framework and foundations, and the doctrinal specifics of the faith. Within the context of about 30 minutes a week on average, that alone is a tall order and extensive branching out is sure to water down the delivery of the basics.

The tone and attitude (in both word and action) communicated from the pulpit concerning foundational areas is crucial. That tone and attitude will likely make or break the importance of foundational knowledge in the congregation. In other words, the buck initially stops in the pulpit, and it will have a make or break effect, acting as a watershed from that level to the congregation. Further, in most cases other levels of leadership will emulate the attitude expressed there (even if they don’t agree). Unfortunately, my observations as well as those from other congregations I have queried indicate that more often than not the result is break, rather than make, with the importance of foundations being communicated as very low. The foundations may be called important, but action and ongoing emphasis indicate otherwise, and the congregation readily picks up on, adopts, or least emulates this. The subsequent effect is to shift foundational issues to the sideline of talk, not action. Not encouraging, but true.

Despite the paradox at work here in the difference between the surface message and the real message, the result likely plays out very smoothly on the surface. Biblical literacy and foundational knowledge is moved onto the shoulders of the ubiquitous small group ministry, with the convenient reasoning that it is a matter for individual and group work, and a subject that is of individual choice or preference as to how much is appropriate. This is error. When it comes to the basic knowledge of the faith, our Lord’s statements on this are completely the opposite. The stress seeking understanding and knowledge of “the reason for the hope that is within you”.

Once the areas of exposition and study slide onto the sideline of small groups, where they are largely unguided and unregulated in comprehensive sense, several things happen very quickly. The leadership can consider them ‘dealt with’ and in good hands. This frees them of ongoing direct responsibility, since the matter is deemed as being ‘well addressed’. They can then move on to other more immediately, pressing organizational matters such as organizational and resource growth. Oversight should and may continue, but in the somewhat informal framework of the small group environment in many congregations this is often not the case.

Next, and likely more important to the issues at hand, since small groups largely function with only arms length guidance and oversight, physically separate from the church, with few in-depth resources, often using as a guide largely devotional style, inexpensive literature with limited biblical content, and offered on a volunteer basis by people of widely varying levels of expertise, they are not well positioned to fulfill what should be critical work. They are unlikely to cover foundational subjects with consistent, predictable depth or completeness. This is particularly true of difficult doctrinal or theological issues, which they are understandably likely to avoid altogether or be unable to resolve. More superficial material and exploration is simply more plausible within the available resources. We should not that this is not a commentary on the people involved but on the environment provided. Overall, the result is a quiet loss in these pivotal areas of knowledge from the general mindset of the congregation. With this loss comes general theological and foundational weakness, and a lack of interest in such issues, as a substrata of the congregational body.

Small Groups are well positioned to foster limited, preference group based fellowship, but not education in biblical or doctrinal literacy. The result is an appearance of education and action but no consistent, measurable delivery of either on foundational issues. You don’t believe me? Fair enough. Take a quiet informal poll around the congregation over few weeks, examining individual knowledge and interest (remembering that the encouraging of interest in these matters is a significant part of the process and responsibility of the church leadership), as well as variance in group study content, in even the fundamental tenants of the faith and its doctrine. I have no doubt of what you will find.

Thus we return to Preaching, and to the issues of Small Groups touched on in several points. Put simply, Leadership must have foundational issues as a priority. Small groups, though very useful, and making a great contribution in some congregational respects, do not offer the leadership a pass on these crucial matters.

Let us finish by restating the suggested starting actions, with the addition of the eighth:

1. Blended contemporary and traditional worship - many do this now and it seems to work well.
2. Preaching which is foundational and biblical at least 75% of the time. This means exposition, not excess commentary and particularly not application!
3. A congregational approach to familiarity (preferably with some memorization) with foundational Bible verses.
4. Bible reading, both individual and congregational (this is not small group bible study from a booklet).
5. Congregational education on the denominational doctrines and distinctives to a level of repeatability.
6. A provision for and endorsement of congregational prayer, specific as well as generic.
7. Church leadership (beyond the paid pastoral staff) actively and obviously engaged in the clear Biblical requirements - spiritual guidance, teaching, preaching and congregational care.
8. Remove church growth from the congregational or leadership agenda. It is a side effect of Glorifying our Lord through primary exercise of the faith and sharing of the Gospel (see Witness for the Lord), not an proper activity.

So there you have it. Again, as stated at the beginning, there are surely better analyzes and corrective actions. That does not, however, reduce the present magnitude nor the growing significance of the problem. In the current tide, and without a change in direction, it is likely to only get worse…

With various issues brought into the light of day, and a number of apparently unaddressed needs discussed, the picture being painted might appear to be a tad bleak. In the face of some of the issues that may well be the case. As a side note, I have just started to read John MacArthur’s latest book (The Truth War) and discovered that I have been harping on roughly the same track. It is encouraging on the one hand to find that much greater thinkers are proposing similar concerns, but discouraging in that it further confirms my suspicions. That having been said, however, I am still naive enough to think that there are a number of simple prescriptions to move things back toward the yellow brick road.

Let me also state that there are surely many other better answers and approaches than those proposed here. That having been said, anxiety about inadequate answers can be an excuse for inaction and decline. For those old enough to recall a TV show named WKRP in Cincinnati, the series opening show had the newly self-named Dr. Johnny Fever exclaiming on the air “Give it to me straight, Doctor. I can take it”. With that in mind, we shall wade in boldly and see what happens.

Overall, I think that we can preserve much of the popular ‘look and feel’ changes that seem to delight people, while still re-incorporating the foundational basics. The point here is not to declare all current changes as unwanted and throw the baby out with the bath water, but to use the present preferential changes to enhance the foundational basics. The problem to date has often been that the new approaches have replaced the basics and not enhanced them, as if these modern preferences formed an equally valid theology of their own. That is surely the road to apostasy!

The other present day reality is that of financial resources. A great advantage to the re-incorporation of the foundational, biblical content is that is it relatively cost free. This also conveniently removes a major excuse.

One key is to give those foundational basics at least as much emphasis as the newer issues. Moreover, in order to re-orient things, it may be required in the short run to put more emphasis on the issues to be re-established as foundational. The next, but likely the most important, key is consistency. The foundational basics must be consistently and persistently taught, preached, discussed and thought about until they are second nature and endemic in the congregation’s paradigm. This second point is absolutely crucial to success. Application of those two changes alone would likely yield a positive result even in the short them, but they must be actually applied, not simply thought about about or talked about.

So how can we practically combine the present and the foundational basics? Here is an off-the-cuff action list (in no particular order of importance) for starters:

1. Blended contemporary and traditional worship - many do this now and it seems to work well.
2. Preaching which is foundational and biblical at least 75% of the time. This means exposition, not excess commentary and particularly not application!
3. A congregational approach to familiarity (preferably with some memorization) with foundational Bible verses.
4. Bible reading, both individual and congregational (this is not small group bible study from a booklet).
5. Congregational education on the denominational doctrines and distinctives to a level of repeatability.
6. A provision for and endorsement of congregational prayer, specific as well as generic.
7. Church leadership (beyond the paid pastoral staff) actively and obviously engaged in the clear Biblical requirements - spiritual guidance, teaching, preaching and congregational care.

And one further point, more an attitude than an action - Forget church growth! It is a side effect of Glorifying our Lord, not an activity.

That is a start. It will no doubt offend the “church is boring, you must engage people to draw them to the Gospel” set. Good! That would indicate that we are at least actually discussing the issues. Points two and possibly four could use some expansion since two is so pivotal and four is such a strong focus in today’s church, but that can wait until the next article.

Within the points listed there is a basic framework for at least a beginning toward more general biblical literacy. And that is real literacy, not just talk about it and vague references. This might just yield an assembly of people who actually are of the Book…

Baptists often refer to themselves as “People of the Book”. That is not unique to Baptists as far as I can see, and is applied both internally and external in describing many in the evangelical and wider fundamentalist protestant communities. It expresses a great intent.

This reminds me of a true story from the family of another believer. Their children attended the publicly funded elementary schools associated with another branch of the Christian faith (I won’t mention who). One day in class, a member of the religious order that oversees the school was querying the class about their church affiliations. The child in question responded that they were Baptist. The functionary responded “Oh, you’re the ones that believe the Bible literally“. Although the child was not sophisticated enough to respond appropriately, the response could have been an equally sarcastic “And your point is?”. Our Lord left us one concrete thing, His Word. Had he considered anything else either necessary or authoritative, He would have told us so. The point is clear…

Within the Baptist paradigm the Bible is considered the only authoritative User Guide in all things. Having said that, and bearing in mind the way that we describe ourselves, one would think that a great, if not inordinate, amount of time would be spent on the Scriptures. On the surface it might appear so, but is that really the case?

There is a significant difference between spending a majority of time explicitly in something versus talking about that same thing. It is my experience that the majority of time is spent talking about the Scriptures, and not reading or addressing them directly. I often think it might be more honest to describe ourselves as “People who revere and talk about the Book”. And that is a shame.

Go into most any Christian store and as time goes on you will see fewer and fewer copies of the Bible. At that same time, there will be many, many books voluminously addressing snippets of Scriptural verse. From the store point of view this represents simple marketing reality, but it also reflects the growth of the issue under discussion.
Now, someone is sure to comment that the Bible is simply too difficult and obscure for most people, and that they need a predigested form that shows them the way. Althougth there is some truth here, is that not what the Reformation was about? To refresh your memory (and admittedly state things very simplistically), the Reformation proposed that the Scriptures be available and read by the masses. It implicitly proposed that direct contact with the Bible was the intent of the Lord, and that the average person was supposed to read it. The dominant church of that time (and in many ways its derivative today) proposed that this was not the case, that it was a recipe for error, and that the interpretation and even contact with Scripture must be left to scholars. These scholars would dispense understandable devotions and such Scriptural snippets as might be deemed appropriate and digestible without causing havoc, confusion or distressing the masses.

Is the bottom line effect today really much different? The real difference seems to be that the evangelical church in many instances chooses to impose a pre-reformation paradigm upon themselves. Does the fact that there is an apparent choice involved change the actual situation or result? I don’t think so. It may mollify one to thinking that they are studying the Word when they are reading about it, simply because they have a choice. But the result is still that the majority of people are largely ignorant of the actual Bible and are dependent upon a professional class of interpreters. Seems pretty pre-Reformation to me.

It was pointed out to me recently (by a clergyman) that if one was to go back 100 or 200 years within the Protestant church movement in general, they would likely find that Biblical knowledge and interest therein would be notably higher overall. If that is true, and even a brief look are historical church writings would seem to indicate that it is, then we are in fact accelerating towards the past.

Does this mean that commentaries, devotionals, and the like are bad? Not at all. But it does mean that in our complacency and laziness we are letting one of the primary freedoms of our faith slip quietly away. We are in fact embracing the past. After some time (and this is already evident in any church lobby) many believers can not now or will not be able to remember the actual Biblical truths and foundational support verses. They will still likely appreciate them experientially or emotionally, but without being able to articulate the reasons or basis. In that situation, what will happen when a stronger worldly stimulus arrives? Even more, what will happen when the time of tribulation arrives?

As pointed out in the last post, we have a clear and fairly well defined model for the presentation of the Gospel in the life of our Lord and His Apostles, as presented in Scripture. The scriptural presentation does not contain any proposition that the models presented will grow insufficient or ineffective over time. It also does not state nor imply that further development by men is either desirable or intended. In fact, Scripture tends to imply that movement in this direction will be a sign of error. There is no mandate for any fundamental departure from the paradigm.

Now to the upside down part. Let us have a peek at what we hear from the church pulpit. We will take it at face value.

Basic one-on-one evangelism is often encouraged in words. However, it is not cited as a tenant of the faith. However, since it is prescribed in Scripture, it sure is just that. It is usually excused with the statement that many are not suited by personality, temperament or demeanor to be able to participate. In human terms this is indeed valid, but there is no provision is Scripture releasing any believer from responsibility in this area. Did not the Lord create each believer uniquely as they are, yet not release them from this responsibility? At the very least, all are responsible to educate themselves as needed to appreciate the task, participate as the situation might be present by the Spirit, and support it as they can. This sort of education does not happen by chance, and it is rare at best in today’s churches beyond cursory lip service.

The growth of the church has gained massive significance in many congregations. Congregational growth is erroneously construed to be synonymous with growth in the body of believers. The presentation of attractive church programs requires ever increasing resources, and an increasing congregation size is needed to provide (fund) these. Although some of these programs may contribute to true evangelism, they are a very costly solution and more that anything else they contribute to church organizational growth and support. That is a completely different matter, and is only peripherally related to presentation of the Gospel.

Next, to stimulate growth it is assumed that any effort at evangelism in today’s world requires that the church entice and entreat people to the congregation before they can be presented with the Gospel. They must be made to feel organizationally wanted and needed, impressed by great programs and fellowship, and made to feel that “this Christianity thing” (a direct quote) is something that they have to get in on. Then, it is proposed, can the Gospel be most effective and is the message most likely to be accepted. It may not be stated that bluntly but that is the message, as clear as day.

Let’s be blunt. This insipidly usurps the Sovereignty of God by implication and make the key factor in sufficiency to be the work and creation of men. This is error!

Harken back to our Lord’s model. Where is any of this? This is precisely upside down from what he did and what he modeled. This is subtle immersion in the world. This proposes that men must improve upon the Gospel for it to be effective. This implicitly proposed that the presentation, and at least part of the acceptance, of the Gospel is under the Sovereign control of man, and that the Lord and the Holy Spirit need help. This is exactly the sort of thing that the Scripture warn against in the coming ages before the end.

Too strong? I think not!

Now, is this proposing that a welcoming church is incorrect? Not at all. We are mandated to hospitality to all, especially fellow believers. Welcoming fellowship to all who come is very important and is in fact required of us as a body. Is there anything wrong with great programs, an attractive assembly and communication that speaks to the people of the time? Again, not at all. These are desirable and encouraging to all. However, this is not the primary mandate or model for us. It is peripheral. Because it has become primary, it is upside down, and all that stems from it is upside down.

Since the world of flesh can only beget the world and can only encourage the kingdom of the Prince of the Air, organizational growth bound in the techniques of the world must be likewise based there.

What is insufficient for evangelism based upon the paradigms, model and examples left for us by our Lord? What is it that justifies and mandates further development or strategic change by man or the church? In a word, nothing…

Continuing on the familiar refrain, I was considering the latest I am hearing on church evangelism, communications, and church growth. Forgive me if I am slow, but it finally dawned on me how perfectly the biblical paradigm is being understood and taught backwards. Why didn’t I see this before? Well, because the two views come from a completely different mindset, and until now I just couldn’t see the other one (though I still think it is totally in error). When you naturally see the sky as blue, it is hard to comprehend it as green even when asked to, so to speak.

Looking at the examples that Jesus set in His ministry, what was His approach? It was pretty consistent. He went among the people, visiting them mostly in the world, in their environment. That environment might be the church of the time (the synagogue), which was socially acceptable, or it might be the secular environment, which was unacceptable in varying degrees (the home of a tax collector or a prostitute in public). In this, He cared not a wit for the optics of the situation! His response to optics problems was “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7), effectively shaming the opticians.

How did He instruct the Apostles when they went out with the Gospel? First, He sent them hither and yon, among the unsaved. He sent them, as Himself had gone, among the people in their secular environment, irrespective of the optics. Next, they went is His name, not their own, bringing any optics or blame upon Himself as well as them. Then, they were to proclaim, again, in His name alone (Sola Christos), the Good News of Salvation. Did they go without difficultly? No. Did they go without Him? No. They went solely in Him and with great struggles at times. They also went utilized only His model of evangelistic behaviour in presenting the Gospel. As time went on in the first century church, this paradigm and no other appear to continue.

As the mother of a long time Christian brother commented to me some years ago, referring to the work of the Lord and the Scriptures, in concrete terms our Lord left us only the Bible and within it His model for the presentation of Him. I would add that as Sovereign God he clearly felt that is what we needed or He would have left something more.

Contrasting the modeling we see in Christ, what did he not do? He went among the unsaved (virtually everyone it should be pointed out) in their environment, but not within their paradigm of behaviour nor their actual activities. In that environment he preached the Gospel in word and deed. He did not in any visible way emulate their activities nor tickle their ears or sensibilities using their cultural norms or passtimes of the day. He did not make any identifiable attempt to entreat people to Himself or the early church by molding Himself or His message to the appear more appealing and welcoming in a cultural sense. When the Apostles were sent forth, did they do differently? Not from what we have in evidence. They represented the Gospel as had the Lord, calling the unsaved to Salvation as He had. They did not establish nor derive techniques to entice the people to like them or the church so that they would be amenable to the Gospel message.

The Lord explicitly acknowledged the absolute Sovereignty of God in calling His sheep to Him. The Gospel had to be offered and that often had to be where the people were, but the people were not enticed to the church through popular activities. Furthermore, the church was not tasked to prove that it was part of the culture in order to appeal to people. The Holy Spirit was assumed to be in control of the actual changes and calling of the sheep, not the church or its people.

Having all this as the only Biblical model, is it not the correct one? Where is the Biblical prescription that says that the model must be developed further culturally over time and that it is will otherwise be in some manner insufficient, to added to by a more evolved form of man? Answer, there is no such prescription. In fact, there are several warning that such things are the work of the world and not of God. How much clearer can it be?

The Lord, in the only documentation and modeling He sovereignly deemed necessary, left us a clear model with many examples. That would appear to our singular mandate and model.

Next we will look at the flip side, the backwards approach…

Well, I can’t help it. I am afraid that I am back onto an old soap box…

We listen to the pulpits, We listen to Christian TV, We read the Christian print media, We browse in the Christian book stores. What is expounded, with a very few notable exceptions, is a common refrain in support of programs to appeal to the unchurched and the unsaved. In one form or another, all these sources are expounding on the need to attract people to the Lord and the church by making them comfortable and entertained. This is also presented as essential to sustaining the resources required for this and other congregational outreach. The key words here are, as italicized, appeal and attract. Moreover, and make no mistake about it, the promotion and provision of this is big business in numerous respects. But that is a separate issue.

This is not say that there is anything wrong with the promotion of the church or with making people welcome through hospitality. That is biblical, desirable, and a mandate of every assembly. But these activities are not synonymous with what is happening in substance, underlying motivation or effect.

In all the talk and programs for church growth there appears to be little apparent or overt visiblity of the plain Gospel, and even less of a hint of a complete presentation of it. The talk centers on advertising, presentation, program roll-out and the like - all discussed and designed to entice the listener. Put another way, it is a paradigm to ‘tickle the ears’ of the man on the street, entreating him or her. The assumption is that once they are enticed, they will be more receptive to the Lord. Many will say, what’s wrong this that? Actually, just about everything.

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires” 2 Timothy 4:3.

What we are witnessing is the application of motivational business models to the growth of the church. Furthermore, the assumption that is almost directly stated, is that by enticing people to the church will result in an increase in the effectiveness of evangelism. The underlyng implication is that people will be welcome and will therefor accept the Lord more readily. Or to cut to the chase, that those actions will have a direct effect upon Salvation.

So what is this really? It is man-centered evangelism, depending upon and acknowledging as siginificant the paradigms of the secular world (rules by guess who?) in Salvation. At the root, it implies that the Gospel is in need of modern help AND that this help (created by men) is crucial to enhance the work of the Spirit for increased success in today’s world.

This is so wrong that I bearly know where to begin! And this paradigm has many insideous tentacles.

Ladies and gentlemen, you can not ‘workshop’ nor ‘program’ your way to heaven or to salvation. To assume (even subtley) that you can is to do exactly what Timothy is implying or more.

In these ear and eye tickling programs there is often lots of impressive innovation and creativity. But what is there of Scripture and it’s approaches? I would put it to you - little or nothing. As such, what is there of the Lord? I will leave that to you…

Now, I hope that this sounds harsh, because that is definitely the intent.

To harken back to a previous post, the use of these tools of the world, in the way that they are emerging, is building a colourful, diverse, vibrant structure with a foundation of sand. In the face of the tribulation to come, it will likely fall, as a sand castle in the rising tide. And as with the sand and the tide, those who have been seduced to rest on it may be at the very least severely tossed about, and more than likely washed away.

Stop any person in the church lobby and ask them about the latest ‘programs’ in the congregation. They will likely have a favourite or one that they dislike, but in either case they will likely know what is going on. Ask them to explain even the very basics of the inerrancy of Scripture or the Sovereignty of God, and you are likely to get no real information to support conviction. Even more, ask casually about the basis of their denominational doctrine, and they will not have a clue (nor much interest), and may not actually understand the question. Even if you don’t use the word Doctrine (which has become a virtual four letter word in many churches), the blank stare will be obvious. Again, harsh but reality.

Is this the correct and desirable picture? Is this the environment that is well equiped to receive and support any new adherents and believers that the many programs are designed to attract? Is this a situation that equips the next generation of believers to weather storms of secular assault? I think not! And what of the spiritual health of those already there and producing the program innovations?

But what of our Lord in these respects? Didn’t he go among the people - the unclean, the unwanted, the undesirable, the outcasts? Indeed He did, and not only that but he thought nothing of frequenting their environments. And we, as His people, can not shun these things. But what He did not do was to use their methods, adopt their habits, or bring either of those things into the assembly of His sheep. As such, we are not mandated to do so either. If He did, someone please shown me explicitly were. He brought the Gospel and the love of God into the their world, and He did so using not only Himself as the Godhead, but also his knowledge of His Father’s Word. He acted in line with Scripture, He preached the Gospel, He shared the Word of God, and He did so whereever the people were. To do this He understood the Sovereignty of His Father, His Father’s Word and the basic doctrines of the faith. And those were the tools. Is this not the correct model then?

Did I miss the part of Scripture stating that the models used by the Lord would expire after a period of societal and socialogical development, to be replaced by superior new ones evolving through man’s experience? I think not.

The emerging set of worldly models and trends are likely, for the moment, an unstoppable movement. After all, the world is moving right along in that direction and Timothy pointed out that many will be along for that ride. Revelations points out that the number included will be legion. Moreover, that ‘many’ likely does not include just individuals but their institutions.

It would seem prudent of us to consider our approach, it’s origins and it’s implications…

One evening about two months ago I was having coffee (tea, actually) with a couple of Christian brothers. Between us we represent several churches of different evangelical demoninations, all generally Reformed in flavour. We are on reasonably common ground in our basic expectations of congregational life and relationships, bearing in mind that our impressions still admittedly represent a tiny microcosm of anecdotal evidence. A draft of this post came from that meeting, but remained a draft. Then, recently I heard a related exhortation in church, and subsequently started the current topic thread. The article now fits. The Lord works even in the smallest things…

At the coffee shop meeting a discussion developed around the apparent (and unfortunate) superficiality of portions of congregational life and interaction. It was interesting that this was apparently not unique to any congregation, nor was it an anomaly related to any particular church event. It was felt, irrespective of where one now or had previously worshiped, that there was a noticable void in real personal relationships within the congregational fellowship. There was simply no depth, and it was often quite unsatisfying. This is competely at odds with what is universally preached, in term of openness and encouragement within the family of believers. There was a perception of a common church game-face (much like the classic work game-face) that avoided most openness, thereby removing the possibility of real encouragement, often when it was most needed. Since real needs were frequently not shared as a result, they remained unknown and could not be addressed within the church family context.

Having said this, were we concluding that there is no encouragement available in the face of dire circumstance? Quite the opposite actually, but that is an extraordinary situation. In the face of dire circumstance, the game-face is frequently stripped away of necessity, and actual support is requested, available and extended. But the special nature of that sort of circumstance belies the normal reality, and does not address the real issues of acceptance, fear of rejection or dissapproval, and lack of genuine fellowship, in everyday congregational life.

In considering the normal culture of the church lobby, fellowship hall, or meeting, and though there are certainly exceptions, what was experienced was definitely not what those in the discussion found to be a positive or biblical environment for the development of the Saints. It must also be noted that pleasant and enjoyable were not included in this list of missing attributes, for on a purely social level these qualities are often present and quite enjoyable. What seemed more desirable and biblical (looking back on our often limited view of the early church, and on what we know of the Lord’s comments on fellowship) was a more open environment, devoid of the necessities of social appearance which most use to live in the world. Overall it would appear that we, as the church, are often assembling but at the same time neither meeting nor coming together. This was deemed dissappointing at best, potentially destructive to the Saints and the church at worst.

In desiring an improved situation, could it be said that one is proposing some sort of utopia, devoid of any reality. No, but admittedly the word ‘easy’ is not part of the equation. Surely, however, an expectation of interpersonal encouragement and relationship based upon safely sharing our real lives (warts and all) and assist each other in working through them, is not impossibly unrealistic.

Viewed through the lense of the disappointment and basic dissillusionment articulated in the discussion, what would appear to be occuring in many congregations is a subtle but steady increase in the influence of the world within the bounds of the fellowship of believers. As long as we view each other from the point of view of worldly values, then our view within the fellowship of believers will be increasingly juandiced. In that senario many will perceive a need of personal protection (the game-face). Part of the key issue here is those wordly values that are used to evaluate others. If these normal secular paradigms are carried unchallenged into church relationships, then it will follow that the reactions and behaviour of believers will follow suit and be worldy.

Could it be that this need or lack is specific to some sub-group or groups within the demographics of the typical congregation? This is very likely. Those that at any point in time form the mainstream of a congregation, or for whom congregational life (by design or situation) forms a minor role in satisfying their personal needs, are unlikely to notice this issue since it does not touch their normal pattern of living. Those for whom the assambly of believers potentially forms a significant part of their emotional lives, however, are more likely to be marginalized if they do fit perfectly, and likely must seek supportive relationships either in the para-church if available, or outside the Body. This is unfortunate and undesirable.

While we live in this life, waiting for the Lord one day at a time, this problem will always be a struggle by virtue of our broken world. However, possibly an awareness that it is a struggle, an awareness of the effects of the world within the congregation, and discussion with an open desire for something else, can help. Recalling the previous post on expectations subtely communicated to believers, there is a close link between that problem and this phenomenon. The solution in that case will go a long way to alleviating the situation under discussion here.

It is hoped that by shining a light on these closely linked symptoms and focusing back on the Word and the Lord, there can in some way be a small beginning to working together as a true people apart, even now.

In examining the philosophy related to congregation size and growth, and in proposing a focus on the Lord rather than the numbers, questions will invariably arises concerning ‘essential’ programs. If size and growth are not to be an issue, aside from an after effect in which to rejoice with new believers, and if the numbers are not be a goal, then how does this affect our view of whatever programs we might hold near and dear?

Clearly, if the number considerations are off the front burner, then this will likely have an effect on the delivery of programs that require financial (and likely human) resources. In essence, it is a simple equation: less people = less money = less programs and initiatives. Also, different starting points will have different concerns - a start-up congregation would have very different needs than an established one.

It is unrealistic for me to look at all senarios in all congregation sizes and it would just be a distraction from the real issue. The concern I have is with the emergence of ‘growth focus’ and the conviction that it is simply not appropriate, nor supported biblically. Even when theis approach might produce results, the slide into worldly values is far to easy and fast. Being a people apart does not exclude the way we approach growth.

The business the “grow or die” credo is both pervasive and persuasive as a model for profit generation. Is any form or derivative of this applicable to the church situation? I would strongly argue that the answer is no. We are back again to why we grow. We do not grow to provide services or profits. We grow indirectly and not of by our own hand, by sharing the Gospel and seeking the Lord through His Word. The growth is up to Him, very literally.

This post has turned out to be a challenge. The discussion of programs is huge and varies dramatically across congregations. Each different type of congregation has different needs and priorities on the practical level. The temptation is to be diverted from the real concern into operational specifics. No matter how significant they may appear, this is a diversion. The point to be made is that the growth of the congregation is not the goal. It can be couched in many forms, with many laudible bensfits, but it is still not the appropriate focus.

The purpose of the God’s people is to glorify Him. The fundamentals are worship (including prayer) and the sharing of the Gospel (which can include many forms). As the Lord calls new believers to faith, the body of believers grows. If, as part of that growth, the number of a particular congregation increases (as surely they will), then that is cause for celebration with those new brothers and sisters. Other benefits may come but they are not an appropriate rationale for any change in focus. The reverse of this paradigm, where growth in the church is sought, even if the Gospel is shared as ‘part’ of the program and new believers result, is error.

Someone will surely call me unrealistic, but that’s okay.

Let us worship Him, seek Him in the Word, and share the Gospel together, leaving the rest to Him.

Much of what has been examined in previous posts in areas such as the Lord’s Table, congregational interaction (in the works), and Scripture memorization, brings with it implementation issues at some point for most churches. I am not referring here to the unique details related to each specific area, but to common issues. Globally, delivery issues more often than not translate into the availability of financial and time resources. Combined with this are frequently more daunting issues of scalability, if growth is a large part of the church agenda (which almost always seems to be the case today), or if the church is already quite large.

At present, churches seem to fall into roughly three groups: first, large to mega churches (let’s put this at 500+, but often several thousand); second, normal churches aspiring to grow substantially over time as a stated goal (150-400+); and third, small stable assemblies, including house or cell churches (10-15 to 125+), often with few growth aspirations other than as a side effect of evangelism. These sizes are just guess-timates, but they give us benchmark categories from which to work, and sliding them somewhat would make little difference to the discussion. I would also note that a comment on the previous post on church size suggested the senario of a believer abstaining from group worship and living as an assembly of one. That model is addressed in the associated reply.

The first group is very large organizationally. I have little experience there, but they appear to have substantive sub-congregation programs in place that may function as cell churches for the purpose of some activities. Nonetheless, the ability to deliver congregation wide coverage of the basics is difficult, and fragmentation is hard to avoid. Further, they are often focused on, or sustained by, continued growth. Personally I can not see intimate personal relationship on a global basis in this scenario. Possibly a reader with positive experience could explain if and how it can work.

The second group is often focused upon growth as a solution to delivering more or better content. Increased size is seen as providing increased resources with which to concentrate on better quality programs. Better may have many definitions (music, or worship, or missions, or others) but always requires more resources, mostly financial. Certainly there is a minimal resource requirement to provide a basic, encouraging and Biblical assembly. However, the proposal that growth and its results will increase effectiveness is an illusion. Since many who adopt this philosophy are using a business model as a guide, it is disappointing that they do not see the limitations of the approach in this framework. It is potentially a treadmill of growth and demand, with no satisfying or stable end. For business, this model often has benefits and yields profits. For the Lord’s people, assembled for Him, this model follows a road to worldly concerns. The growth focus is always couched in talk about the faith and so on, but it is clearly a business model that is in use. Fundamentally, the Lord’s model for performance is not that of a business based in the world.

The third group (a very small minority) are modeled more on the cell church structure. This may not make them tiny, but probably limits them to just over 100 practically. Once that threshold is passed, they would likely have to divide to continue as two small units. This, in fact, is often the approach adopted by these groups. In this environment there is little or no concern with growth, though it is not avoided proactively. Growth in this model is a side effect. Since they are not forward looking in a growth sense, the focus tends to rest on foundational faith and obedience therein (including sharing the Gospel). This characterization assumes that they are not struggling with growth to the next size. If that is the case, then they face the same issues as the second group, but with the likelyhood of greater discouragement.

One argument for church growth is that it is synonymous with evangelism and growing the body of believers. There is no question that we are commanded to evangelize, and thereby facilitate growth of the body. That this is synonymous with church growth is, I feel, a complete miss-representation of the intent. Church growth may occur with the sharing of the Gospel. In fact, it is even quite likely. However, this is not the goal and must not be even on the horizon. If it is, then it is the organization that is the focus of growth, with the body of believers as a side issue. That is not evangelism. Not doubt, as with all events, the Lord can and will use all senarios to his advantage, but that does not change our challenges.

It might appear that a bleak picture is being painted. Not so! The point is that church growth alone is not a legitimate goal, and can make congregational life difficult. Those who embark upon it must face those realities, both in presentation and in ongoing evaluation. Congregational growth, however, is a legitimate side effect.

In terms of overall size, there are surely some large assemblies that bring all congregants together in true fellowship and joyous worship. As size increases, however, this becomes exponentially more difficult, and eventually impossible, from my present viewpoint.

The support of the Body of Believers and the sharing of the Gospel by an assembly will be used by the Lord to call the Faithful to Himself. That is the focus. We assemble, pray, worship, share the Word, and so on, in simple obedience. Again, that is the focus. The size of some congregations may increase, but that is wonderful gift from the Lord and not the goal. Let us remain focused upon fellowship in our Lord and the Word.

Next -> Church Size - But what about ‘essential’ programs?

With the brief thumbnail (to be expanded in a later post) of congregational size from a previous post as a backdrop, the question struck we - who should set this significant direction for any congregation?

There are church type and official policy considerations as an undercurrent, but those often do not accurately reflect the way the congregation operates. For example, many constitutionally ‘congregational’ churches may in fact run with a Pastor as defacto CEO and with congregational approvals as an effective afterthought. Or the paradigm could be reversed. Ignoring these set-ups and any value judgments about them as a separate issue for the moment, however, who should set the priority for the congregational size and growth profile?

A case is sometimes made for interpreting the great commission as a command to proactively grow not only the faith, but by implication each congregation. This would be Biblical by implication, if that interpretation were applied. This intrepretation would mean that growth would be close to, if on the, top proirity. However, not only is that simply one interpretation, but there is no concrete stipulation in Scripture of precisely ‘how’ it is to be sought. Procative congregation growth, and the means thereof, has many models and possibilities.

Growth which is based upon offering services (in that paradigm, that is what programs are, after all) can end up as a vicious circle. In this model, there are never enough resources to satisfy the program needs, so further growth needed, and so on. As such, increasing size based upon programs can end up chasing resources (that is, money). This would apply to both internal congregational support programs and external programs such as missions or social acitivism. In both cases the result is expanded resource needs that never meet the expanding program plans.

There are other senarios, but they all lead to the place where increasing program scope and activity requires additional financial resources. This would appear to be true whether the models starts at the small or the large end of the scale.

With all this in mind, let us consider the process of setting congregational program priorities.

In the biblical model used in many evangelical denominations, the Elders (including the Pastors) are tasked with Spiritual guidance for the congregation. Those tasks today seem to be presumed to included the direction of the church in terms of growth priorities. Depending upon the denomination, those priorities may require approval by the general membership in some forum. In many cases, though, these goals and their full implications are not clearly spelled out or completely veted with those in the pews before being ‘passed’ and ‘implemented’.

Does that matter? Well, if the decisions have financial implications for congregant participation, and if there is to be hope of success, then it matters a lot. Failure of the proposed priorities to reflect the actual priorities of the stakeholders (the congregants) is to flirt with failure. Since this is not an uncommon church situation, the surprising, even shocking, part is that the leadership is surprised by the result.

What am I saying? Well, if there is to be a congregational direction related to increased size and financial obligations, then the majority of the contributing congregation must help formulate that direction (and I don’t mean just approve it at a meeting, which is a historically unreliable indicator), and agree to it explicitly, along with a clear statement of it’s implications for the individual. I would go so far as to say that to do otherwise is to ‘test God’ as opposed to ‘trust God’.

Why bring this up? Well, after talking to congregants from various congregations, and having heard a majority say that in one respect or another their church is struggling financial while at the same time proposing increased expenditure, it would seem that there is an organizational failure to communicate somewhere.

To roughly quote another believer, speaking during a discussion on a church expansion proposal: “If you had the choice between attending a church composed of 500 or more adherents, including a precentage of believers, or a church of 125 or so, mostly believers, which would you choose?”

An interesting question. One’s answer will likely determine one’s reaction to our discussion, and possibly reflect a theological view. The speaker’s answer was somewhat clear in his phrasing, but the question remains.

A large or very large congregation offers the substantial resources to support many worthwhile and useful ministry programs and projects. These might include, but are not limited to, Youth groups and activities, small group ministry support, missions and missionaries, worship (team) equipment and support, additional Pastoral staff to support special areas and congregation subgroups, and much more. All of these have valuable objectives and serve the Kingdom. However, the focus can easily shift to the programming itself.

The small congregation offers an intimacy of contact that is hard to replicate (despite various programs to address it) on the larger scale. In that closer contact there is often more room for (and likelyhood of) close fellowship on the congregational scale, and assuming a Christian mindset and leadership are in place, possibly a greater opportunity to personal development of Christian character. At the same time, with obviously less resources, there are very strict limits on the type and variety of activities that can be undertaken. The exclusion of some people and significant acitivities may be unavoidable. These limitations are especially true in the area of Pastoral staff, where salaries and benefits are directly related to congregational size in most circumstances.

Which is better? There is likely no ‘correct’ answer, and the answer given will depend upon what a particular believer is seeking in fellowship. However, this leads to an allied question. To what degree is the church a service organization, and what are the true and proper priorities within the Body?

Questions, questions, questions…

Having been affiliated with Protestant church denomations for most of my life, I have always seen the Lord’s Table practiced on roughly a monthly basis. The Baptist church at which I presently worship follows this pattern, with the occasional move to accomodate holiday weekends, etc. This seems the defacto standard for frequency, or at least I assumed it was. I started to wonder why…

A few years ago I became friends with members from several Brethren Assemblies. I learned that what I had assumed was some sort of ’standard’ for the practice of Communion across the Protestant churches was not that at all. The Brethren, for example, observe the Lord’s Table every week (or almost every week). When I enquired about that frequency, one of my Brethren brothers explained that since the Lord gave us this ordinance and told us to observe it when we gathered in His name, until he returned, they interpreted that as frequently and at most Assemblies. He further shared that for him this was a precious and intimate communion with our Lord, that he looked forward to the privilege of observing it frequently in both obedience and closeness to our Lord and Master, and to drawing close to Him in heart and mind eagerly (that is not verbatim, but it conveys the just of his comments I think). I wholeheartedly agree and I like the idea very much. To practice that rememberance and unity before each service, with our brothers and sisters in the faith, follows the Scriptural intent in my opinion and also has many congregational benefits.

So, this begs the question why the all of the Baptist denomination (at least that I know of) practice it only monthly, at most, and some others (reports from Protestant friends) extend that to only 4 times or even less a year. What is going on here?

Is the Lord’s Table somehow not as important or significant for these? Is it not felt to be needed regularly? From the official importance given it in these denominations, in word and on paper, that would not appear to be the case. Yet we have this lack of frequency for this significant and unifying ordinance. Perplexing!

In chatting with others about this issue, another church member suggested that it was a matter of cost, both in time and materials? I find that hard to believe, but I have no proof otherwise.

Interestly, not one other church member that I have asked (outside of my Brethren friends) could offer a local or docrtinal authoritative explanation. I have not surveyed Pastors on this issue, but with the variation in practice described above I expect that it is deemed a ‘local’ decision. This does not, however, address the issue of relative importance in published doctrine vs practice. Perhaps some insight from the Pastoral side will provide new insight for an update article.

A quick survey of post-Reformation practice seems to indicate that for some time after the Reformation the church followed the guidance of Luther and practiced the Lord’s Table weekly. However, the frequency was considered a congregational freedom. Baptist literature seems to leave the timing optional, at weekly, monthly or even yearly, with monthly being the present norm. Again, however, in the earlier days of the Puritans the practice was more frequent, usually weekly, and they considered this significant. Some denominations (Lutherans, for example) still have substantive debate on this issue. Other Protestant demoninations seem to vary widely, with monthly an average, but in present times there is talk of a trend back to greater frequency. Overall, there would appear to be no doctrinal norm to cite.

Having observed the Brethren practice, it seems to me to be both wonderful and in keeping with the spirit of what our Lord has said. Why would one not want to draw close to the Lord in this manner weekly? Certainly there are exceptions but how could other priorities be more important on a consistent basis? Surely there is a scheduling that would accomodate it a reasonable percentage of the time. I would very much like to see my church follow suit, and anecdotal data would indicate that other congregations might have the same sentiment.

What do other believers think?

Something else to consider at some point -> The Format used for the Lord’s Table

What happened to Scripture memorization in the evangelical church, particularly for those past Youth Group age? Why does it not ‘fit’ or seem ‘appropriate’ in today’s church programs?

Is it a general trend of Scriptural malaise, or something that I just happen to observe in some sort of microcosm? And, although I will not address it here, did substantive, universal Scripture memorization ever exist widely in the church in, say, the last 30-40 years? In this regard, what is wrong with the picture today? A comment on a previous article spurred me to write about this issue, although it has been an item of concern to me for some time.

Children and some youth, in programs such as AWANA, continue to accomplish wonderful things in committing Scripture to memory. This is certainly a great foundation, and admittedly is accomplished more readily at that age. They will have this repository of Scripture hidden in their hearts for the Spirit to call forth when needed. That is not only a blessing, but for many will be a necessity in the trying times of life.

But what of the older (and by that I mean 20-25 through much later) folks? There seems to be little interest in memorization of Scripture as a worthwhile part of ongoing church ministry, and the symptoms appear to increase with age. All the more perplexing is the observation that the retiscence appears in many cases more pronounced in the leadership, as opposed to those populating the pews. Even congregants have been know to quietly marvel among themselves at this puzzle.

There is no doubt in my mind that continual rehearsing of key Scriptures is needed by all. Satan is always at work, and having foundational Scripture solidly at the beck and call of Spirit, in the heart of the believer, is a significant piece of armour. Who would imagine that only children need it? Moreover, who among us could have the hubris to think that they were ‘mature’ and beyond the need? In doing so they would most surely be on dangerous ground.

Experience indicates that almost all believers acknowledge this need when asked, and yet, in most cases the distractions of life make it unlikely that any personal program of Bible verse memorization and retention will continue in the long term. This appears equally true throughout the average congregation - leadership and congregants alike. Surely there is a strong message in this, pointing particularly to the need of support and encouragement of this activity.

In the face of the Spiritual Warfare which most believers face daily in one form or another, a program of Bible verse acquisition and practice would seem to be quite important. If it is not, or if it is effectively blocked by one means or another, is this not Spiritual Warfare in the Body that is headed in the wrong way? And what are the implications of ignoring this foundational area in deference to other higher profile ‘programs’? Does their success cancel or reduce this need? To paraphrase the Apostle Paul “Not a chance!”.

Scripture states “Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil” Ephesians 6:11. When placing the Word in our hearts as part of that full armour of God, surely we are to subsequently maintain it and not let it rust for decades after we have acquired it. When it comes to memorized verse, needed in later times of distress in life, the old adage “use it or loose it” is quite apt. Thus, our activities need to include both acquisition and on-going rehearsal.

Congregational leadership is certainly aware of this. So why is it not decisively and proactively addressed? Program popularity surely is not a proper concern in foundational matters. And why, when programs to address this issue occasionally appear, are they given little importance and allowed to wither, replaced as new flashier adgendas emerge? Is corporate Scriptural memorization and rehearsal considered dated and thereby ‘out of favour’? Does it not offer enough kick to lure new people into the church?

I must conclude that this is so, and when the proactive hiding of the Word of God in the heart is of lesser significance than any ‘new’ program, something is surely amiss. Not to dismiss modern worship, or to say that new forms have no place, but our Lord did not say that the value of hiding his Word in our heart had an expiry date or age limit. He also did not say that as you grow older other programs replace that need. He implied precisely opposite!

Lastly, before it gets rolled out, let us look at the so often mentioned concern in today’s churches - program cost. Many, if not most, congregations today face program delivery cost challenges, along with all the stewartship discussions that thereafter develop. New, and especially flashier, programs invariably cost more, both in the human and financial resources. This is interesting when you consider that what is being discussed here is the decline in a program which costs next to nothing to launch, promote and sustain. After all, the Lord provided what is needed. Bible verse memorization and related support has to be among the least expensive of endeavors a congregation can undertake and sustain. And even if that were not the case, would it be less significant?

If I might be bold, it seems to me that church leaders need a little more ‘Biblical’ or ‘foundational’, and a little less ‘MBA’, in both thinking and approach in this regard…