Extemporaneous Ramblings

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…

A few after thoughts arising from discussion and musing since I posted the Proposal.

It might come across that this proposal for congregation-wide proactive equiping should supplant inreach (other internal congregational support programs). That is not the intent. The local church continues to requiring tending through the usual activities - worship, youth group, Sunday School, fellowship, and so on. All this is foundational fuel, from which the energy for evangelism outreach can spring.

Admitedly, there is a cost in both financial and time resources to implement this sort of training. But this would be relatively short term in the sense of universal delivery. After that, the resource cost would be minimal and include only review and the occasional rerun for new participants. This would normally, I presume, fall into the Missions Ministry category, but that is just the bean counting. I suspect that in many cases there would be sufficient proponents that the project could be funded separately from the congregational budget.

Next, in the initial thrust, some other church programs would have to give way for a short period, possibly in a sequential, rather than concurrent, fashion. As stated above, the normal feeding and support of the Body is crucial and can not be forgotten or expect to run on automatic. The evangelism activities should not be just added to the existent complement or programs or it would overload the schedule. Actually, I see this as the largest impediment to initial implementation.

No worthwhile initiative, of course, comes without some effort and sacrifice. What has been proposed is simply one possible model if the members of the Body are to walk in obedience and experience the joy of this particular aspect of the Faith.

Good food for congregational discussion.

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…

What a joy to have the privilege of being called together, even in this life, in the name of our Lord! We are His.

Just think of it - owned by the Creator the universe, part of His family, forever His possession, and predestined to be so even before we came into existence. No matter how many times I consider it, I am once again in awe. It calls to my mind another verse from the old Fanny Crosby Hymn “Redeemed, How I love to proclaim it..”:

Redeemed, and so happy in Jesus,
No language my rapture can tell;
I know that the light of His presence
With me doth continually dwell.

How often to do we remember, in the hustle and bustle of daily living, driving to work, dealing with situations, and so on, that we are completely safe in His grasp - this moment and forever? I think that I often forget it, and each time I am distracted and that happens, I dwell momentarily in less joyful place. Of course that lack to safety is imaginary, but it is nonetheless a less joyous place to live.

Do I sound over the top? Well, so be it. That we should be able to glorify His name, what a thought. I pray that we will recall in each moment that wonder, that we are His people apart, and rejoice together in that.

With the discussion of what, why, who and partly how, out of the way, let’s finally look at doing something about it! It has been a long and admittedly somewhat tedious journey in places, but it is trickly to propose somewhat radical change without a reasonably substantial preamble to support it…

I would like to propose a bold approach. I would dearly love to see the effect.

For the congregation (or para-church group):

1. Forget any talk of church growth or similar factors
2. Forget any talk or speculation about increased resources, programs, etc., etc.
3. Forget any emphasis on performance and results

4. Learn a method and use scripture to support it and our own conviction
5. Obtain a bulk supply of New Testaments to give away as needed
6. Train the majority of the congregation in all available venues
7. Practice for comfort even if it seem a bit ariticial
8. Support and encourage all subsequent attempts (irrespective of outcome) to share the Gospel
9. Be open to bringing those shared with to church, our ONLY focus will be on sharing

There you go, the grand experiment. What would happen? Would even the assembly and para-church groups that I am affiliated with be willing to throw caution and worry about growth to the wind, step out boldly in faith in our Lord’s Will, and try it? Maybe it is a challenge as much as a proposal.

Soli Deo Gloria

To train in facilitation or enabling, without encouraging the appropriation of responsibility for the outcome, what are the best tools?

Possibly a good starting point would be to look at tool type(s) which might encourage responsibility for outcoming. Since that is not what we want, it may eliminate some inappropriate approaches.

Fundamentally, any approach into which ‘we’ have direct content input would tend to encourage us to assume responsibility in proportion to our input. Since we at least partially created it, we can claim some of the results. So, how one relates to the material used to articulate the Gospel will effect the degree to which one claims responsibility for the result.

As an aside, I am not including mode of presentation - whether you present the material in the English or other alphabet, or whether you use a note pad, Power Point or pamphlet. That is media, not the material itself. If there is a related issue in this area, it is separate and not addressed here.

To continue, if one were to create a presentation of the Gospel utlilizing a human paradigm of the steps to salvation or one based upon human psychology, then irrespective of how effective or successful it was, it would tend to ensnare the presenter in the responsibility trap. And, the degree of danger would be at least proportional to the amount of personal human input into the paradigm presented. Let me stress again that I am considering the danger to the presenter’s perspective here, not the quality of what is being used.

All this is really just preamble. So, what to do?

Let me state up front that I am unashamedly poaching part of this approach from William Fay (Share Jesus without Fear ISBN:0805418393 - highly recommended), and that I have a strong belief in equiping when possible through hands-on mentoring or training (hey, I teach for a living ). Having said that, I have come to believe that the most appropriate (for the person witnessed to) and safe (from the point of view of the witness) tool is pure, unvarnished Scripture.

Scripture itself presents Scripture as ‘the’ tool for present the Gospel and the road to Salvation. It presents Scripture as the co-agent of the Spirit in effectual calling. Nowhere does it list alternate methods or resources that are needed to make it effective in the original or subsequent eras. Nowhere does it state or imply the as time goes on a little help from man might be either needed or desirable in the work of ‘calling’ the Saint from the world. Since we had no part in the creation of Scripture, it’s functioning in this (or any other regard) is not of us and to claim responsibility would be ludicrous.

What does this mean? Well, to me it means that the best methodology to present the Gospel and at the same leave the work where is belongs (in the hands of the Spirit), is the use of plain Scripture. Not only that, but if calling is effectual, then the real work is happenning behind the scenes. Beyond possibly a style of presention that helps both parties relax a bit, we are not responsible for the material nor the result. Since the presenter is then merely a facilitator, he or she is much less (not completely mind you) likely to grasp at the result, and all the pride, etc., that might go with that path.

The joy is then in celebration of whatever the result may be, since it is the Will of the Lord. If the result is another Saint, the rejoicing is in the work of the Lord, Spirit and Scripture alone. And rejoicing in the privilege of seeing it happen. If the result is resistance, even rejection, then the rejoicing is in the opportunity of acting in simple obedience to our Lord and Saviour. And rejoicing in the fact that we can leave it all in His hands, not ours.

In utilizing this technique, there are certainly many degrees. By this I mean that on one end we have a quite strident approach from Fay’s book, while there are many for whom that would we unsuitable since they have a less gregarious personality. As such, an exact scripted paradigm is not reasonable nor advoacted here. Since we have a spectrum of believer personalities, a set of guidelines or a road map to the Scriptural presentation, preamble, and subsequent support will allow the personality of each believer to shine through in sharing the Gospel.

How have I come to these opinions? I am certainly not an expert. Most of this has evolved through many conversations with other believers about the likelyhood of actually sharing the Gospel and feelings about that, through ideas culled from Fay’s and other books (though there are very few), through sharing the experience of other believers related to numerous instances of sharing the Gospel subsequent to personal evangelism workshops, and lastly, through personal experience, reactions and observation.

Does anecdotal and Scriptural evidence suggest that this is the only way, and that others might not be effective? Not a chance! But I do feel that a simple, clear, honest presentation of Scripture will be used by the Spirit for His ends, and in that we can rejoice in leaving the result to Him. In simple obedience I can’t ask for much more than that.

Next -> Witness Training - A proposal

The discussion so far has been largely to support the suggestion that with the use of simple Scripture as the tool, only very basic technique in sharing it, and all responsibility beyond that left to the Lord, we are in a position to apply a training paradigm fairly universally that aligns well with Biblical principles. The majority of believers that are called to witness might then have the ability to benefit from it.

Does the form and format of this training matter? In my view, it does. As previously discussed, the crux of the problem is overcoming emotional reactions. These reactions occur in almost all cases after the witnessing opportunity appears and before witnessing actually occurs, effectively stopping the process from getting started. The witness reacts internally and then never steps out. In the actual situation there may be all manner of justification and rationalization, but the reality is that the process simply gets blocked.

Since the desire to witness is sincere and the motivation often strong, how does this occur? Again in review, the blocking reaction often originates in feelings of responsibility (in this or any other process). Taking responsibility is ‘trained in’ throughout secular life as a positive and correct reaction. It could be argued that it serves well in some circumstances, but not here.

Here the Lord is the responsible party. The key then is to address these inappropriate feelings of responsibility for the end result. Though we are facilitators in the actions of and Will of the Spirit, our secular training pre-programs us to seize responsibility for not only the facilitation, but also the content, tools and results. As such, whatever training is undertaken would be well advised to provide tools resting firmly and clearly in the Lord, with the participant viewing themselves as being allowed to act a facilitator through the Lord’s Grace, and the result clearly belonging to the Lord alone.

Seems a lot to ask, but in reality it implies simply using the Scripture, and pointing the responsibility for the result where it belongs, to our Sovereign Lord. All of these articles are simply support for that. It may seem (and does to me) that I am belabouring the issues, However, it seems necessary to delve a little deeper in explanation before asking people to take up the challenge.

Next -> Witness Training - What tools?

How would one decide or know who to train? Though it might seem obvious, in some environments you might be called upon to justify the scope.

If the training is arduous, how many of the congregants would be capable of completing it in terms of reasonable commitments of time, background, previous theological training, language skills, or a host of other factors? Many would not be able to participate for one reason or another. Since the Lord proscribed that all participate in sharing the Gospel, then any assistance or enabling in support of that must surely be simple, concise and easily applied.

Next, the internal emotional blocks inhibiting action on the desire to witness would be excaserbated by making an individual responsible for learning complex techniques. The more complex, the more the individual would be likely to feel that they had acquired ‘technique’ and had later caused the result. A direct, simple approach would seem the best paradigm in all respects.

Recalling the guess that 5% of believers had the skills already in place, if even half of the remaining 95% acquired the tools, and even if some nonetheless could not step out, consider the number of additional opportunities that might be acted upon. What an exciting thought, in the service of the Lord. Again, not to gain anything, for that is His call, but for many more to have the joy of simply and obediently sharing the Gospel as commanded.

Would it be possible to offer fairly universal assistance, allowing many more believers to feel enabled, and bold? A limited initial experience indicates yes.

Let me amphasize that, irrespective of all the numbers, theories and such, the issue here  is enabling direct, very personal witnessing. I believe that whatever we can do to enhance this enabling for any believer honours our Lord.

So the answer to “who?” must be “all who will offer themselves”.

Next -> Witness Training - What kind?

We are referring here to church-related preaching vs preaching the Word and Jesus. Good intent, often good message, even good results, but potentially the wrong focus. Why? The Lord takes care of today, not us! The Lord grows the church, not us. This, or course, flies completely in the face of the current church growth and emerging church frameworks.

What does ‘church-related preaching’ look like? Simply put, it refers to preaching that focuses mostly on congregation building (explicitly or implicitly), and what might be positively spun as congregational support matters. The counter pose to this would be preaching that is focused on Scripture in an interpretation or exegetical sense, or even a focus purely on the Word, centering on Jesus and life in Him alone.

Does this sound unrealistic and impractical in the real world. I hope so, because the Lord has been pretty clearly that worldliness, in all it’s forms, is not the road to church success.

Is this to propose that preaching on people issues and family support matters is bad? Not at all. However, when that becomes the consistent focus from any pulpit, exegesis of the Word of God and concomitant surrender to Jesus can easily fall from the front burner. In that situation, the world’s (remember that the world’s message is Satan’s) message that we can trust ourselves for at least the small matters can seductively make inroads. Once that starts to happen, we have the church inadvertently reinforcing the same messages that we are bombarded with constantly from the world. That is the quintessential slippery slope. Worse, this slippery approach is likely to be quite successful and therefor self-perpetuating.

The fact that it is the Word of God that changes hearts must always be front and center in our hearts and minds. It is not interpretation for living life. It is not application. It is not programs, workshops, seminars, nor fellowship groups. These are all good and have a place, but they are not the active agent in the quickening of the heart. They are not what calls the Saints from the world to the Lord. It is the Word of God that does that. And it is the outworking of Sovereign Grace.

Now, is this proposing the we hear only the Scripture read in Greek or KJV, irrespective of the linguistic abililites of the audience. Definietly not. Though the quickening of the heart is a supernatural occurance, and the understanding of scripture is revelational as well as intellectual, that work is certainly facilitated by simple understanding of the language that is being used. As such, a translation appropriate to the congregation or listener is the jsutifiable choice within reason. Some may ‘prefer’ one translation or another, just as some may have a denominational preference, but that is a tiffle compared to a focus on other than scripture.

Surely it is Jesus alone and Scripture alone that is the key. The Word is the one and only sword of the Lord, cutting the world from the heart of the Saint. So let us support our brother and sisters in the Lord, but always maintain the concentration on the Lord and the Word.

What would happen if there was equiping, and something actually came of it? Just out of curiousity, let’s kick around some numbers, and compare them speculatively with the situation now and some other possible approaches to this issue.

Let us begin by remembering that this is NOT of us. It is the work of the Lord, and we are just obedient servants, privileged to have the opportunity to stand with Him. Further, our discussion is not to reduce in any way our view of the complete Sovereignty of our Lord in all matters, including these. Though we may talk about situations or paradigms, we must keep uppermost in our minds that this is about enabling direct, very personal witness of one person to another in the name of Christ.

At the moment, in the many of this city’s congregations (I would be very surprised if it varied significantly in most congregations or places, at least in North America), the percentage of folks actively witnessing, even occasionally, is very low, maybe tiny. Let’s hazzard a guess at 5% but I would wager it is actually lower. Even if those folks are the ones with natural talent in witnessing-type presentation skills and through the Lord’s Grace they have great success, they would represent a very small number of witnessing events per year when averaged over the congregations as a whole.

Possibly a congregation (or para-church group) might as a result include one actual witnessing event per year for every 15 or 20 congregants. Does that sound too low? I would say it it likely too high. In any case, is that what the Biblical command to go forth means? I don’t think so. Is the situation that extreme? My observations would certainly indicate it is.

Does this set of guessed statistics mean that the Lord, through the Spirit, only provided witnessing opportunities for a tiny number of people from the entire congregation to a few people in whom the effectual calling of the Lord was present? Again, that would be completely at odds with Biblical statements such as “Then He said to His disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.” Matthew 9:37-38. Even common sense would indicate that it is not a case of too few opportunities.

So it would appear that the situation is one of abundant available opportunity, combined with blocked ambition to act of some sort, within the Body of Believers.

If the ratio of people able to act on witnessing opportunities was increased by even a few, the number of people hearing the Gospel would be larger. That would surely be something to rejoice about! Not that there would necessarily be more conversions, for that is the exclusive purview of the Lord, but His name and the Gospel would be more frequently and clearly raised up in obedience. And that is a reason to rejoice!

Next -> Witness Training - Who?

We listen to the message from the church and para-church, exhorting us to obey the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). We hear it from the pulpit, in Sunday School, in the lobby, in the small group, in youth group, in Christian association meetings, and many other venues. To paraphrase - “Just do it”, we are told.

Because you are a Christian (whether for 1 day or 4 decades), are you equiped intellectually or emotionally to step right out in witness? Judging by the number of believers who do so, countless conversations about it, and other annecdotal evidence, I would have to conclude that the answer is no. Based upon these sources, I would actually go farther and say, in most cases: not equiped, not practically supported, not effectively aided, not followed up, just exhorted. Doesn’t that sound impractical?

In fairness, this is neither deliberate nor negligent. Those (including us all at times) doing the exhorting are very sincere, and often not well equiped themselves. Even it they are equiped and skilled, their equiping is often based upon an approach grounded in and evolved from their own faith. As such, it may not be easily transferable, and in many cases they are not skilled in communicating nor transferring it. In fact, if they are good at it, they may not see what the problem is at all.

Does this mean that average Christian does not wish to obey the command of our Lord to go forth boldly? Again, not at all. Most wish sincerely to do so. It might be suggested that we do not go forth simply because we make excuses. That is likely partially true, but the essence of it is that many, if not most, simply do not have the tools that would give them the confidence and internal support to make the attempt. Without the confidence that at least rudimentary equiping brings, it will simply not happen in most cases.

Does equiping involve developing advance theological or scriptural knowledge? To exaggerate a bit, do you need an MDIV to witness? While those skills are certainly valuable and might occasionally be useful, they are not necessary. All that is necessary is a very basic knowledge. If that were not the case, the Lord would be setting up a system that excluded all but a few, with the rest doomed to failure. It would seem clear that He does not have that in mind. Remember that it is the Spirit that does the actual work, not the presenter. A requirement for special knowledge would move the onus back to the presenter.

So, what is needed? Basic, simple, transferable technique, and consistent training.

With the confidence that normally develops from basic training and practice, there is a much higher probability that most, if not all, Christians can be equiped emotionally to feel that they could step out with the Gospel. Notice that we said emotionally, not practically, intellectually, knowledgeably, nor any other ‘ably’. Not that those components are not needed, but discussion with numerous believers would indicate that it is the emotional reaction that mostly holds us back. Even rudimentary equiping begins to bridge that gap, bringing at least the possibility of action where none was emotionally possible before.

Is this process necessary for all believers? Likely not. But experience and honest evaluation would indicate that it is necessary to one degree or another for most. Is witnessing possible with out this approach? Certainly, for the Lord fundamentally equips all believers through the Spirit. However, if the number of the Saints stepping out with ease and confidence today is any indication, helping eachother in this way would assist us all.

What a joyous thought, to help each believer gain the basic confidence and security to act in this most basic obedience to our Lord!

“And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;” (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Let us use the gifts that He has given us, through His Grace, to equip eachother for joyous obedience.

Next -> Witness, by the Numbers

In recent (and most likely future) articles of this thread we have been examining what might appear to be shortcomings of the church, congregational life, and the focus of some preaching. Though these are real issues that need to be examined and hopefully corrected, let us not interpret this for even a moment as taking anything away from the difficult burdens of the preacher (or member for that matter) in today’s congregational environment.

In a world proactively preaching relativism, pluralism and the absolute sovereignty of modern thought (in other words, man) in all matters, the church is potentially the only remnant of truth and the sovereignty of God. The struggle of these two mindsets surrounds, and is a silent participant in, most interactions. God is sovereign in every case, but the conflict is nonetheless felt while living in the world.

The burden laid upon the preacher in the present day church is a difficult one. A sincere soul is often torn between the call of the Lord to preach the Word plainly and directly, and the call of the congregation that lives in the world, possibly with quite worldly expectations concerning church performance, growth, programs, services and more. The church may be view by some as a service organization as much as (if not more than) a conduit for the Word of God alone. This is not deliberate, but it is an understandable byproduct of organizational existence in the world. From this can arise great stress for those upholding the truth.

Further, the clergyman may be viewed as being ‘employed’ by the church, and is himself living in the world. He is not impervious to the call of the world, and he is a favourite target for Satan et al. It is all too easy for him to be lured by the expectations and performance values of world, as can any man. Every man is part natural man while living on earth, and as such requires continual protection from the earthly ways of the evil one. This is expecially so for the Preacher.

Let us give praise to our Lord for sustaining our Pastors, and credit to the Pastor who, in the face of wordly pressures encroaching on and in the church, can sustain a Biblical focus. Great encouragement is needed by each one, to help sustain the Biblical focus in the face of modern pressures.

As one views this senario, the singular value of the Biblical perscription of dependence only upon the Lord and Scripture comes sharply into focus. Everything else is suspectible, to one degree or another, to the world. The values of the world press in from all sides (including the inside). Since everything in the world is of the world, this can not be otherwise. Our only hope is the rock of faith, dependence upon the Lord, and concommitant attention to His Word. All else are the byproducts of men, and as such not of the truth.

As it is written in Scripture: “I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind.” Ecclesiates 1:14. The only path is through the Word and to the Lord.

Let us hold those who are called to preach and teach up to the Lord in prayer, that they may hold fast to the Word alone, depending upon Jesus alone, and leaving the result to the hand of the Lord alone. And let us thank them for their courage in the face of a daunting task.

Sola Christos. Sola Scriptura.

Within the box there is freedom, the only freedom - both in Juggling and in Christ. All you tend to hear, however, is platitudes about outside the box.

Within the physical constraints imposed by the patterns we learn and rehearse in juggling, we can express an almost unlimited freedom of creative expression. That expression would not be possible without the underpining of base technique that is ‘forgotten’ while creating. This is true both in individual, as well as group, juggling activities. Freedom of expression exists inside the box.

Pablo Picasso was quoted roughly as follows: To paint in the abstract one must first become a master of technique. Once that mastery is acquired, one must forget how to paint and just create. Forgetting how to paint does not entail never knowing. The initial discipline must be mastered first, or the real work is not possible.

With some writer’s licence, one could paraphrase the above and say that the currently popular (and mostly misunderstood or misrepresented) ‘thinking outside the box’ in essence requires a perfectly defined box in place all the time.

This is certainly the case for juggling, and in my opinion also for the Christian life.

In the Christian life, the more we master the basic of dependence upon our Lord and the Holy Spirit in all matters, the more complete is our effective freedom in life and in the development of our personal potential. He created and called us for the sole purpose of glorifying Him, so in our most complete development we do so most fully. This is accomplished within Him (ie. the box). Not only that, but while we are most completely “in Him”, our expressions of freedom and complete abandon can not do other than both please and glorify Him. We do not have to strive to do so, nor fret that we will not, for the more complete our surrender, the more impossible it is to do otherwise. As such, the fundamental goal is surrender. And this surrender is within the box, not outside it.

Furthermore, this surrender is not a passive, wimpy act. It is not some blissed out new age’y state of inactivity. It is the pro-active seeking to live in Him - actively. Immersion in Christ implies His persona, and that is not ambivalent to life.

As we seek Him in pro-active worship, immersion in His Word, and desire to please Him, we are absolutely secure in the box, a box that He designed and brought us into being to occupy. Therein is complete abandon and freedom of expression - the fullness of our potential.