Extemporaneous Ramblings

I was thinking about how believers are like that old line from Alice through the Looking Glass, we see through a glass darkly. In our case, however, we predominantly think that we see normally. The sun appears to shine clearly and brightly. The moon illuminates a clear night sky. Stars twinkle in the heavens above. All this and more appear with what we consider true colour and form. And yet all of this, and all of our internal life which this is merely a reflection of, is behind the smoky glass lens of fallen man. All that we are, and therefor all that we think, see, touch, feel, create, and so on, is jaundiced by who, what and whose we are. We were the Totally Unable - slaves to the world of flesh. That world permeates everything that we are because we are part of it.

[Notice I use both the past and the present tenses here. Before we were saved, it was all present tense. After (now, hopefully, for the reader) it is past tense, but remains partially present while we are yet in the world. Please forgive my confusion of tense as we continue…]

In that previous, natural state we can not understand things of spirit. “For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” Romans 8:5. We could only appreciate and serve the flesh. This do not necessarily mean that all that we do is completely evil, unjust, without value, or otherwise. But is does mean that the shadow cast by our basic natural condition of being of the flesh taints all that we are, and thereby all that we do, could do or even could imagine doing. That is not under our control, since it is merely a reflection of the nature of ourselves that we take for granted. To put it another way, if you live your whole life behind tinted glasses, how would you know that the entire universe was in reality not the colour you saw at all? Not only would you not know, but you could not know. Even if someone told you the truth, you would be unable to process it in order to really understand it, since to do so would make you into a different person entirely.

So here we are. We were who and what we were as men (and before someone asks, generic men, by the way, which includes women ), and we could not be anything else since we can not see or even imagine anything outside that global reality. Only as a result of being changed by an external force beyond this global universe can we perceive another reality, that of spirit. Then there has to be development, but that is outside reality until we have been altered to participate in it.

And that is what our Lord has done for us. We were marked for inclusion and change before the world was created, by “the kind intention of His Will” Ephesians 1:5. Our Lord came and created a pattern of redemption for all those who Hi Father predestined to be saved, so that the opportunity and mechanism would be available. The Holy Spirit altered those who were marked by the Father, sealing them into that Particular Redemption provided by our Lord “once for all” Romans 6:10, Hebrews 10:10… (that were marked).

What a wondrous and joyous miracle of completely undeserved mercy and Grace!

What did this have to do with our ability in our natural form as we arrived in the world? Absolutely nothing!! How could it, since we couldn’t even see it from that reality.

How can we not be humbled to our knees or prostrate on the ground before our God, in the light of what has been done to us and for us? We have been plucked from the world or darkness and sight dimmed by flesh, and recast into heaven while still alive.

Praise our Lord and Glorify His name. We can never give sufficient worship and thanks.

First a caveat. If you are committed to societal relevance in church programs, seeker sensitivity, the emerging church, or are easily upset or offended in this regard, you might want to skip this article…

How many times have you heard the mantra from Real Estate sales people? Location, location, location!

Well, for the assembly of believers it should be similar in a way. Foundation, foundation, foundation!

Summing up the discussion of church leadership models, and with The Cambridge Declaration in mind, it all comes down not to the model, but to direction and focus, irrespective of the model. Granted, it may be argued that one model or the other might have advantages depending upon the criteria. However, it is where we vest our group focus that makes the real difference, not how we might choose to structure the hierarchy.

I previously cited the comments of a Christian brother, who pointed out that the key was not the model but whether the assembly focus was on foundational matters. He particularly referred to a focus on the Bible above all else (notice that is on the Bible, not on material or programs about the Bible). I would add to that a consequent focus on clear education in sound doctrine and basic foundational theology. Those are the only appropriate places for focus that reflect a biblical perspective. As soon as the focus shifts to other priorities, though in and of themselves they may be important and meaningful in Christian life, then the whole body moves inexorably to become more secular. Since all creations outside a biblical focus are by definition of man, then they are also secular in equal proportions. The results, then, can not be other than equally secular in nature. And the body creating those results becomes more of the world by default.

This does not mean that the results in themselves are not good, effective, well intentioned, meaningful, supportive of Christian life and world view, and more. They may well be. However, and let us be clear, they are not biblical in nature and they are not based on the pattern laid out in Scripture. It will be argued that they are implicitly so. Sorry, no sale! I just don’t buy it. Nor can anyone taking a biblical view, without very creative exegesis. Scripture states that the things of man, as with natural man himself, are unable by definition to please God, due to their natural state.

Does this mean that such activities and programs should not happen? No, that is not what is being implied at all. Quite the opposite actually. The Lord also made it clear that the elect were to walk in the good purposes that had already been put in place in advance of creation, stepping forward in His name. These programs, activities and more fall into that category. But the critical factor here is perspective. The horse goes first, not the cart, and the activities are definitely the cart. The horse is a clear and over-riding primary focus on the Bible and the Lord. Anything else comes from that, after the fact and as a result of the work of the Spirit.

The primary (and in fact only) priorites for the church are (in equal importance) the plain delivery of the Gospel message to the unsaved (the whole message it should be noted), and the development of the saved (elect) in foundational Scripture, sound doctrine, and possibly related theology. This plays out in assembly and worship based in the Bible, fellowship in seeking Bible knowledge and direction variously, and sharing the Gospel message with the unsaved as the Lord presents opportunity.

What about other programs in support of self, family or societal actualization - even clearly productive ones? As a primary focus of vision, sorry, no sale again. These are after the fact of the primary task already stated. They can only correctly flow out of success in addressing foundational matters. Any success outside that primary directive is outside the Lord, irrespective of its value or benefits in the physical world. Why? Because the results aren’t based upon Him unless He is the focus. They are based upon the one who creates them - man. As such they can never please the Lord according to Scripture, no matter how good they are for the world or even for other believers. Only things based in Him, in seeking Him, and learning about Him, can create things that please Him. The Holy Spirit creates the rest out of those activities.

What does this all mean?

It can only mean that there is only one God approved focus or vision for the body of believers, and that is Christ. Since the only concrete thing that He deemed to leave us in hand was the Bible, then that is fully sufficient and the only primary focus. Seems pretty simple actually.

People may try to add many things and visions, implying that they reflect on the Lord positively. That may be true, but unless they come from seeking Him through what He left us, the Bible, leaving the rest to the Spirit, then they don’t meet the mark. Again, the outworking in the world is the after effect, created by the Spirit, as a result of immersion in Scripture and the Lord. Scripture does not state anywhere that the process can be the other way around. That is the way of the world and the antithesis of our Lord’s intent.

Vision can only stare directly at Christ, and therefor the Bible. Forget the programs, even the good ones, as far as vision goes.

In practice this means biblical, doctrinal and theological preaching and teaching. Modern relevance and application are not relevant, so to speak. Beyond that, for the assembly of believers, it means being lead into Scriptural immersion, discussion and study of foundational doctrine and theology, and group worship and prayer. Of course the result will be relevant, but by the hand of the Holy Spirit, working in the elect - not in the hands of men, even men of the church.

With the focus on foundational matters, all the other out workings will certainly evolve, but after the fact of Glorifying and concentrating on only Him. Vision based otherwise may be of good intent and even good societal result, but does not Glorify Him alone. To some degree at least it must glorify its creators, men. That is inappropriate for His people.

Soli Deo Gloria

To read The Declaration in the context of this discussion, please see the previous post Bread Crumbs on the Right Path…

The Cambridge Declaration
April 20, 1996

Evangelical churches today are increasingly dominated by the spirit of this age rather than by the Spirit of Christ. As evangelicals, we call ourselves to repent of this sin and to recover the historic Christian faith.

In the course of history words change. In our day this has happened to the word “evangelical.” In the past it served as a bond of unity between Christians from a wide diversity of church traditions. Historic evangelicalism was confessional. It embraced the essential truths of Christianity as those were defined by the great ecumenical councils of the church. In addition, evangelicals also shared a common heritage in the “solas” of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation.

Today the light of the Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that the word “evangelical” has become so inclusive as to have lost its meaning. We face the peril of losing the unity it has taken centuries to achieve. Because of this crisis and because of our love of Christ, his gospel and his church, we endeavor to assert anew our commitment to the central truths of the Reformation and of historic evangelicalism. These truths we affirm not because of their role in our traditions, but because we believe that they are central to the Bible.

Sola Scriptura: The Erosion of Authority

Scripture alone is the inerrant rule of the church’s life, but the evangelical church today has separated Scripture from its authoritative function. In practice, the church is guided, far too often, by the culture. Therapeutic technique, marketing strategies, and the beat of the entertainment world often have far more to say about what the church wants, how it functions and what it offers, than does the Word of God. Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of the music. As biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness, and as its doctrines have lost their saliency, the church has been increasingly emptied of its integrity, moral authority and direction.

Rather than adapting Christian faith to satisfy the felt needs of consumers, we must proclaim the law as the only measure of true righteousness and the gospel as the only announcement of saving truth. Biblical truth is indispensable to the church’s understanding, nurture and discipline.

Scripture must take us beyond our perceived needs to our real needs and liberate us from seeing ourselves through the seductive images, cliches, promises and priorities of mass culture. It is only in the light of God’s truth that we understand ourselves aright and see God’s provision for our need. The Bible, therefore, must be taught and preached in the church. Sermons must be expositions of the Bible and its teachings, not expressions of the preacher’s opinions or the ideas of the age. We must settle for nothing less than what God has given.

The work of the Holy Spirit in personal experience cannot be disengaged from Scripture. The Spirit does not speak in ways that are independent of Scripture. Apart from Scripture we would never have known of God’s grace in Christ. The biblical Word, rather than spiritual experience, is the test of truth.

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura

We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

Solus Christus: The Erosion of Christ-Centered Faith

As evangelical faith becomes secularized, its interests have been blurred with those of the culture. The result is a loss of absolute values, permissive individualism, and a substitution of wholeness for holiness, recovery for repentance, intuition for truth, feeling for belief, chance for providence, and immediate gratification for enduring hope. Christ and his cross have moved from the center of our vision.

Thesis Two: Solus Christus

We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ’s substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.

Sola Gratia: The Erosion of The Gospel

Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature. This false confidence now fills the evangelical world; from the self-esteem gospel, to the health and wealth gospel, from those who have transformed the gospel into a product to be sold and sinners into consumers who want to buy, to others who treat Christian faith as being true simply because it works. This silences the doctrine of justification regardless of the official commitments of our churches.

God’s grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace.

Thesis Three: Sola Gratia

We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God’s wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.

Sola Fide: The Erosion of The Chief Article

Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. This is the article by which the church stands or falls. Today this article is often ignored, distorted or sometimes even denied by leaders, scholars and pastors who claim to be evangelical. Although fallen human nature has always recoiled from recognizing its need for Christ’s imputed righteousness, modernity greatly fuels the fires of this discontent with the biblical Gospel. We have allowed this discontent to dictate the nature of our ministry and what it is we are preaching.

Many in the church growth movement believe that sociological understanding of those in the pew is as important to the success of the gospel as is the biblical truth which is proclaimed. As a result, theological convictions are frequently divorced from the work of the ministry. The marketing orientation in many churches takes this even further, erasing the distinction between the biblical Word and the world, robbing Christ’s cross of its offense, and reducing Christian faith to the principles and methods which bring success to secular corporations.

While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning. There is no gospel except that of Christ’s substitution in our place whereby God imputed to him our sin and imputed to us his righteousness. Because he bore our judgment, we now walk in his grace as those who are forever pardoned, accepted and adopted as God’s children. There is no basis for our acceptance before God except in Christ’s saving work, not in our patriotism, churchly devotion or moral decency. The gospel declares what God has done for us in Christ. It is not about what we can do to reach him.

Thesis Four: Sola Fide

We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God’s perfect justice.

We deny that justification rests on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ’s righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.

Soli Deo Gloria: The Erosion of God-Centered Worship

Wherever in the church biblical authority has been lost, Christ has been displaced, the gospel has been distorted, or faith has been perverted, it has always been for one reason: our interests have displaced God’s and we are doing his work in our way. The loss of God’s centrality in the life of today’s church is common and lamentable. It is this loss that allows us to transform worship into entertainment, gospel preaching into marketing, believing into technique, being good into feeling good about ourselves, and faithfulness into being successful. As a result, God, Christ and the Bible have come to mean too little to us and rest too inconsequentially upon us.

God does not exist to satisfy human ambitions, cravings, the appetite for consumption, or our own private spiritual interests. We must focus on God in our worship, rather than the satisfaction of our personal needs. God is sovereign in worship; we are not. Our concern must be for God’s kingdom, not our own empires, popularity or success.

Thesis Five: Soli Deo Gloria

We reaffirm that because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God’s glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone.

We deny that we can properly glorify God if our worship is confused with entertainment, if we neglect either Law or Gospel in our preaching, or if self-improvement, self-esteem or self-fulfillment are allowed to become alternatives to the gospel.

A Call To Repentance & Reformation

The faithfulness of the evangelical church in the past contrasts sharply with its unfaithfulness in the present. Earlier in this century, evangelical churches sustained a remarkable missionary endeavor, and built many religious institutions to serve the cause of biblical truth and Christ’s kingdom. That was a time when Christian behavior and expectations were markedly different from those in the culture. Today they often are not. The evangelical world today is losing its biblical fidelity, moral compass and missionary zeal.

We repent of our worldliness. We have been influenced by the “gospels” of our secular culture, which are no gospels. We have weakened the church by our own lack of serious repentance, our blindness to the sins in ourselves which we see so clearly in others, and our inexcusable failure to adequately tell others about God’s saving work in Jesus Christ.

We also earnestly call back erring professing evangelicals who have deviated from God’s Word in the matters discussed in this Declaration. This includes those who declare that there is hope of eternal life apart from explicit faith in Jesus Christ, who claim that those who reject Christ in this life will be annihilated rather than endure the just judgment of God through eternal suffering, or who claim that evangelicals and Roman Catholics are one in Jesus Christ even where the biblical doctrine of justification is not believed.

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals asks all Christians to give consideration to implementing this Declaration in the church’s worship, ministry, policies, life and evangelism.

For Christ’s sake. Amen.

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Executive Council (1996)

Dr. John Armstrong
The Rev. Alistair Begg
Dr. James M. Boice
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
Dr. John D. Hannah
Dr. Michael S. Horton
Mrs. Rosemary Jensen
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Dr. Robert M. Norris
Dr. R.C. Sproul
Dr. Gene Edward Veith
Dr. David Wells
Dr. Luder Whitlock
Dr. J.A.O. Preus, III

www.alliancenet.org

Is one of the models discussed correct per se?

I don’t think so.

No matter which leadership model might be implemented, is there an absolute set of criteria for correct direction?

Yes, without question.

Is direction easier to discern and apply with one of the models?

I would have to say yes. With a clear line of command, the professional leadership model likely makes consistent direction more easily implemented.

Does the professional model offer clear advantages due to the academic expectations associated with it in today’s church?

Again, I would say yes. It could be just academic prejudice, but I would agree with the comment about this on a previous post in this series I have more confidence in the consistency of biblical messages prepared with a solid theological background. That said, however, I would add the serious caveat that a proven, clear, doctrinal and theological view based upon accepted biblical and doctrinal tenants is essential, coupled with a consistent foundational focus. Without these, the situation with professional leadership is in fact likely to be noticeably worse.

Does the professional model potentially contain more accountability issues?

Without doubt, yes. With centralized power, irrespective of the incumbent, comes implicit centralized authority, particularly in an otherwise volunteer based organization. This means that transparent, consistent and clearly defined accountability are essential.

Can the tenants of correct, biblical direction be simply and clearly defined?

Yes, absolutely.

Should the tenants or the church priority include provision for related secular concerns, programs, subjects, or the like, outside the straightforward biblical, theological or doctrinal message?

Absolutely not.

Is there room in church focus and mission for more contemporary but possibly related concerns expressed separately from clear Scripture, in order to show relevance? For example, programming around self-fulfillment, self-esteem, Christian psychology, etc.

None at all.

The Bottom line

The exploration and edification of the body in Scripture, theology and doctrine is the one and only primary focus. Although application and peripheral congregational support programs can play a part in this edification, these are only after the fact, and subservient to foundational matter. The only real focus is foundational.

Can clear foundational tenants be quantified?

An excellent statement of the distilled tenants would be the The Cambridge Declaration from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. These provide a very potent distillation of the Scriptural position, and a particularly good basis for discernment in implementation.

A thoughtful and prayerful reading of these tenants is highly recommended. In relation to church direction, focus and policy, the statements of denial are of special interest. Examination of church direction and vision with these in mind would go a long way towards clear evaluation and biblical discernment.

I would propose that Church direction or focus which explicitly or implicitly moves in the direction of any of these denials, even subtly, is not of the faith. It is error and leads to the world.

The Declaration is reprinted in the next post.

In examining leadership models, one anomaly in the alternate model might be that of Youth Leader. This is particularly true at the larger end of the small assembly, with around 100 or more people.

A brief net survey of assemblies falling into this size and model group would indicate that a number perceive a need for some sort of official youth leadership. This may be an actual salaried or otherwise remunerated position, or function in a somewhat less official capacity, but with the sole purpose of acting as the youth ministry leadership.

This would appear to be an acknowledgment that youth programs are an exception in the model and require active facilitation. I think that I would agree. I would speculate that whereas the adult groups can draw leadership from the more mature believers within the particular group, youth do not typically have that option. The youth demographic does not have years of experience available. They also are members of the group on a somewhat itinerant basis (only until they are a couple of years older), when compared to adult groups, and do not have time to develop appropriate skills. Moreover, those are very busy years that do not leave room for a major leadership commitment.

Though we are speaking of salaried leadership, this is not to imply that somewhat older volunteer believers do not fill this role in an exemplary way. Historically, they have done so, and continue to do so today. However, the observed change whereby some assemblies employ full or part time staff in this single ministry position would tend to indicate recognition of a quantifiable requirement.

There is the possibility that the perceived requirement is a symptom of plain old parental paranoia, on the assumption that a staffed supervision is somehow superior, but that is just a wild guess. Possibly the staffed position is expected to guarantee time spent, programs implemented and accountability. In that case, we might be seeing the intrusion of the more secular values that has been observed with respect to leadership positions in the traditional model. But again, this is just speculation.

Lastly, the existence of this salaried position within the alternate model framework should not be taken to imply professional clergy. Although this might be the case, it appears to be just as likely that the incumbent would be an experienced youth worker just as often as youth pastor (that is, an individual with an academic or denominational designation).

I draw no conclusions here, but the phenomena does exist in a small segment within the alternative model. As such it does demonstrate the emergence of some degree of common thinking on this issue.

Most of the discussion of pastoral leadership models so far has centered around what could be termed cost vs benefit analysis. This is admittedly a very narrow and unbiblical framework, yet it is definitely the one which I have heard the most spontaneous opinions on, and which seems to divide those opinions. In itself, this could be viewed as revealing in terms of what seems to be a significant focus in at least part of the present congregational mindset. Further, and most significant, though people are often divided (and occasionally vocal) about this, they are seemingly unconcerned about the foundational theology and related direction of pastoral staff. Incredibly, this can extend to the point where it is of only minor importance or interest what the leadership actually believes, beyond a basic node to a global organizational statement of beliefs or organizational mission document. Many in pastoral service are not plumed beyond that superficial level. Sounds unbelievable, but it is fact. Of far more importance it would seem, are issues of personality, relationship ease, entrepreneurial program skills and the like. In other words, postmodern organizational concerns rule, and a true biblical, theological or doctrinal profile is barely even on the horizon. In the extreme, believing ’something’ in the basic ballpark is considered enough. This is in no way a comment on the staff or what they might believe, but it potentially speaks volumes about the congregational mindset and condition.

Are there other value added advantages offered by either model? Specifically, does the professional, salaried model offer any substantial advantage in significantly higher (measurable) availability or in benefits directly derived from additional background academics? For me the jury is still at least partially out, but some think it does. How do these factors contribute to an increase in congregational motivation and the development sound theological beliefs? Congregational involvement is certainly on the front burner in many churches and is often addressed, but does the general development of sound theology matter (in reality, not just talk) today?

With the professional leadership model, a strong case can likely be made that there is better provision of pastoral services and guidance due to simple availability. The salaried leader has a clearly defined responsibility to be active and available on a consistent basis. That should result in a great deal of activity and a high level of involvement. Further, that involvement should be at the implementation level and not merely as management. Since this likely includes exhortation and motivation of the congregation, it is expected that the church life which evolves under this leadership model would be more dynamic.

Is this in fact the reality? The results would indicate sometimes. As any position varies with the individual involved, the results also do. Nay possible problems appear to be centered in clear definitions of role, expectations and accountability. If the role is very clearly defined, with an incumbent that fits, then the probability of success is good. However, since the lines of accountability are often quite weak, the predictability of success can be limited.

On the issue of availability, salaried staff presents a two edged sword. The full time position should bring a expectation of defined minimum availability. This of course depends partially on accountability, but normally yields predictable involvement. On the other hand, with the definition of employment comes a very definite and secular expectation of time for money. This can lead to different expectations from the two sides. This is not to say that time expectations accompanying the pastoral position shouldn’t have limits, but the expectations of the congregation and the staff must be very clearly defined up front to avoid problems. This is seldom a reality, again because historical expectations have not kept up with the church environment.

Unlike secular roles, part of the pastoral position involves definition by our Lord. In that, the pastor and his Elder brethren must prayerfully seek and come to consensus. This is further complicated by the expectations of the congregation, who are often by definition excluded from this equation, other than after the fact. This is correct in a Biblical sense, since the function of the Elders is assembly leadership and the discernment of appropriate direction from the Lord in churches adopting an Elder based leadership paradigm. At the same time, it can lead to partial or complete disconnection from the general membership, with subtle alienation and division as the result. If the leadership level is not closely in tune with the general membership, nasty surprises will almost always await in the long run. Part of this must center on communications. The general church populace must be in the ongoing information loop as the leadership seeks direction. After the fact is not only not good enough, but is likely to be too little too late, no matter how well intentioned.

The pivotal issue here is, as always, the overall leadership direction. Primary direction centered on foundational biblical truth, the Lord and His Word, is the only legitimate one. That will appropriately draw the congregation and leadership together, or not, in whatever way the Lord intends. Any other focus, however well meaning and superficial beneficial it might seem, is inappropriate, man centered, and will eventually be divisive since it is by definition based in the world first (even if in the church in apparent intent).

Does the alternate leadership model operate at a disadvantage in this regard? It would appear not from appearances. In the case of available congregational care there could be lapses in availability since the leadership have more outside commitments. That said, it would appear that those within these assemblies take the biblical leadership model to heart and there is pastoral type support available as needed. Additionally, as discussed above, full time staff with employment time expectations can just as easily lead to a lapse in care. Moreover, the congregation may feel that they are more easily ‘off the hook’ as far as providing pastoral care since someone is paid to provide it. In the alternate model this combination of factors does not occur. Overall, the likelihood of lapses in care in the alternate model could be judged to be only slightly higher.

The professional leadership model can definitely offer advantages in ongoing focus, if and only if that leadership can maintain a very strong sensitivity to the general congregation and retain their confidence through transparency. Although this sounds like a secular popularity contest, it is not. There are areas of no flexibility that should be the hallmark of even responsive leadership. Those areas are foundational biblical knowledge and preaching. If that area in well addressed, with the Word as the focus of preaching and church mission, then other issues can often be more flexible. If, however, basic foundational theology and doctrine are not consistently preached and taught, the other issues will move the church more and more into a secular framework. The result is postmodern theology. Make no mistake. This is the work of enemy! Also, to harken back to an earlier paragraph, if pastoral beliefs are not known or not in tune with the congregation, then the result will likely be a shying away from theology and doctrinal discussion, to the long term detriment of all concerned.

Is there a conclusion on which model is best? No. The only conclusion would appear to be that both can function well under certain circumstances. The traditional model may, in today’s society and if the church is strongly focused on growth, be more fraught with the dangers of postmodern theology. The alternate model, without consistent leadership focused in an individual or individuals, may be in some danger of offering less congregational support and guidance.

In either case we must return to foundational theology and doctrine as the key. Irrespective of the model, if the Sovereignty of God, consistent reading and proclamation of inerrant scripture, and education in sound doctrinal theology are not the over-riding, consistent focus of the leadership, then the assembly is on the road away from the Lord toward some sort of postmodern club.

Now to an alternate model, one with no professional (that is, salaried) pastoral staff.

First, it should be noted that not employing salaried pastoral staff does not necessarily mean unprofessional preaching or pastoral leadership. Within the ranks of those filling roles within this model are numerous individuals with equal or greater academic and experience qualification to those in paid pastoral positions. The results can be demonstrated to be equal or superior to those achieved with salaried staff. The availability of these levels of expertise in this model does, however, tend to be somewhat the exception. We will assume for our discussion that those fulfilling pastoral roles in this model have, on average, a more limited formal academic background in theology and in associated academic designations.

Next, even without full time pastoral staff, there often remains a requirement for a secretary/receptionist/administrator or some similar support position, functioning as facility and ministry ‘point man’, so to speak. In fact, this would likely be of more importance with no other staff on site. With that in mind, that cost might be approximated at $20-30K yearly, judging from anecdotal evidence.

Now to the real issue - what of the pastoral functions in this model? Most assemblies following this model attempt to adopt something of a first century church framework, with lay preaching and church authority.

In most biblically modeled, post-reformation churches (of either model), the function of Elder has the mandate of local leadership and responsibility. This is often defined to include preaching, teaching, spiritual shepherd, and some form of assembly accountability (though it could be argued that in the Postmodern church this is fading). Other duties and responsibilities may also be included.

In the denominational model previously considered, the pastoral staff frequently fall into a defacto CEO role, as much due to availability as any other reason. This places the Elders at a lesser authority level in terms of governance, irrespective of the situation on paper or what may be presented to the congregation. In the alternate model, with no defacto CEO, the Elders naturally assume a more traditional, and likely more biblical, role which includes all assembly leadership requirements. Any functions that are not performed by the Elders must be delegated under their authority.

If not all Elders are gifted to preach (though this is clearly mandated biblically as a requirement of the calling) , then that pivotal role in particular can be delegated to others who are capable and available. As in the early church, those so delegated come from the congregation, as the Lord leads. Does this mean that they are not professional? Normally, yes (with occasional exceptions as noted at the beginning of this article). Does this mean that they are less competent or deliver a lower standard of preaching? Absolutely not. In all likelihood their experience, at least at the beginning, might be a tad rough around the edges as they are allowed the privilege to develop under the Lord’s leadership and local mentoring. However, experience would indicate that when properly shepherded the results can be consistently equal to those obtained with professional staff. Moreover, it can be argued that any weakness is outweighed by the opportunity that is provided for assembly members to follow the Lord’s leading into some form of preaching (without spending 4-10 years in Seminary to qualify), as well as for the assembly to participate in and support this development. The local development of future leaders and of assembly members providing substantial local mentoring is also likely much greater in this situation, out of shear necessity if no other reason. This also means that preaching can be, and normally is, shared among a larger number of individuals,allowing more preparation time for all and possibly alleviating excess burden.

Another consideration is that lay preaching increases the accountability role of the Elders, particularly in shepherding and developing those taking on preaching roles. This must include great discernment and sensitivity in guiding not only those who are gifted, but in handling the movement of those who are not gifted into other more suitable areas of ministry without injury.

We must bear in mind that this paradigm is being delivered at an 80-90% reduction in financial resources when compared to the traditional denominational model. This can not conceivably do other than reduce congregational pressures.

This may seem to paint a very rosy picture. Is this rosy scenario and outcome guaranteed? Certainly not. Without the focused leadership that should (notice that is should and not necessarily does) come with full time staff there is certainly ample opportunity for a situation to develop in which individuals or the assembly can run amuck. Considerably more responsibility and power, and the concomitant problems accompanying it, are vested in the local Elders and any designated representatives. Without a central figure, the possibility of disorganization could be much greater. Since I have very limited experience in observing this model in action over time, I can not draw any conclusion concerning the probability of problems developing. But it does strike me that our central figure is always to be the Lord. Could this scenario bring that more sharply into focus? Possibly.

Does the possibility of problems mean that this model is more prone to failure or excess? Frankly, I don’t think so. I see no indication of that, and more importantly no indication that it is any more likely with this leadership model than with the other one. I would proposed that the likelihood of problems is just as great with professional staff, just different.

In discussing this train of thought with a friend who has experience in the alternate model, we agreed that the success of either model depends directly on the degree to which the Assembly is focus on the Word. Without that, in either case, human issues related to the model become central and divisive. Only through actively seeking the Lord in the Word on a consistent, persistent, day-in day-out basis, as a congregational focus can the Lord’s leading be sought in either case. In this way, neither model was either correct or superior. Sadly, the slide into giving process priority over foundational issues is very seductive.

Again however, we must continue to bear in mind that with such a huge financial resource differential, the effectiveness of the traditional denominational model must be seriously scrutinized. It would seem that for it to work effectively and be justified there must be very strong leadership from the lay level, and transparent congregational accountability. Both of these are often largely non-existent today. In addition, to benefit from the central leadership, that leadership must have very strong, demonstrable skills, and these must be objectively evaluated on a regular basis. Failure in these regards is likely to have quite negative consequences over time.

One last note must be considered in relation to congregation size. While the professional leadership model can potentially be scaled up by the acquisition of more personnel, the lay leadership model is mostly inappropriate for a large venue. However, those who advocate that model often argue (quite successfully in my view) that the large scale venue is not a biblical model and is inappropriate. Better to spin off additional small assemblies.

Next, are there other tangible or tangible benefits for the professional model that are not provided in the alternate?

A couple of weeks ago I was chatting with a relatively new church member. They expressed shock about what they had recently learned (not from me, by the way, since am not privy to those numbers) of the level of Pastoral salaries and benefit. Their dismay also extended to the secrecy that surrounded these facts within the congregation at large. This got me to considering how many other ‘pew peasants’ might quietly feel that same way to one degree or another. A somewhat informal survey indicates quite a few.

In a similar vein, I had been musing lately about the Pastoral leadership model that most major denominations adopt, as opposed to that used by some smaller denominational groups, such as parts of the Brethren.

These considerations jointly brought these related issues more to the front burner.

Having always attended major denominational congregations (both now and in childhood), I have taken the model of a professional clergy pretty much for granted. However, I have been slowly changing my mind about this for a variety of reasons, and the related feelings of others from the pews helps to convince me. I also realize that I am very likely to tilting at a sacred cow here, but…

To keep the playing field level, I will artificially limit consideration for now to congregations and assemblies that have a physical infrastructure in place. That is, they have a house of worship of some sort, with all the administrative and resource requirements that accompany even a minimal facility. Later I might get to the house or non-facility-based church scenario, but that brings a different set of considerations and it is not a fair comparison to those with a facility to support. Additionally, I have to admit that I like the idea of the concrete focus provided by an at least minimal church building.

In most established denominational churches, professional clergy fill the key preaching and management roles. Historically, these positions have been regarded as being in the Lord’s service, by implication sacrificial, and thereby not high paying is relative terms. In more recent times, with recognition as professionals and a corresponding demand for ever increasing minimum academic degree levels, these positions have developed substantially escalated salary expectations. This is not to suggest that a professional does not merit a fair salary, but the historical (and not so historical from what I have gleaned lately) congregational perception of the poorly paid pastoral position is no longer a global reality in North America, especially in established congregations. Many congregants seem unaware of this reality of present day church resource allocations, even in their own churches. In many evangelical denominations today, members of the pastoral staff are likely to have salaries and benefits that eclipse those of the majority of the congregation. This is not widely acknowledged, and in recent times many churches have exacerbated the situation by moving to the secular tradition of salary secrecy (which would have been unheard of only a few years ago). Moreover, the perception and common presentation by the clergy of themselves as holding low-paying, high requirement, service positions, is completely at odds with the current reality.

Let us begin by considering the church budget in relation to today’s higher salaries. On the assumption that congregation size most often determines the number of pastoral staff, the percentage of the budget allocated to salaries and benefits is likely to be somewhat constant, scaling up or down with the congregation size. This would yield a relatively constant salary allocation as the congregation size and number of staff varies. Anecdotal evidence appears to show that today 50% or more of the overall budget is often allocated to pastoral incomes (salaries + benefits). Over even the short term, and barring an anomalous jump in contribution levels, this percentage could reasonably be expected to slowly rise. In addition, there may be incentive plans such as interest free or interest reduced loans in place. This in itself may shock some people.

Although I was going to cite an example here, I think it more prudent to simply suggest that the reader apply the suggested paradigm to the church budget of their choice. Bear mind that in the case of congregations with several pastoral positions they are usually graduated in relative salary (eg. senior, associate, etc.). This should allow the reader to approximate salaries if they are not published. Moreover, ordained staff benefit from a substantially lower income tax rate (in Canada at least), so that any salary must be increased to allow comparison to secular employment numbers. It is likely to be an eye opening exercise for many.

Although pastoral responsibility profiles vary, pastoral staff are expected to perform a number of basic functions in most churches, including regular preaching, congregational oversight, program or organizational administration, and visitation. Hours are seldom fixed, and most work largely on their own time and schedule. It must also be born in mind that there is an element of being ‘on call’ for congregational incidents that comes with the territory. There are also occasionally some at least informal expectations of continuing education. None of this would seem drastically out of line, however, with the salary levels, compared to secular employment.

What of various types of review and accountability?

In a secular corporate position, most employees serve within defined lines of accountability and reporting, including some sort of external oversight. The objective performance and evaluation bar in congregational service would appear to be quite a bit lower. Accountability, particularly in denominations with no external hierarchy, is normally through a locally elected board of some sort (usually Elders), to whom the pastor is also the defacto spiritual adviser or even mentor. Intentions notwithstanding, this is a clear conflict of interest, and makes true objective accountability and performance evaluation very difficult, and likely limited. Even when there are no actual problems, the lack of transparency in the situation can erode confidence. This does not discount that fact that the pastor is actually accountable to the Lord. However, some form of transparent, temporal accountability is also surely necessary for as long as we remain in the world, as it is for all within the body of believers.

For salary accountability the lines are even more hazy. Salary increases are rarely tied to measurable, reported objectives and performance. Although usually approved in some forum by the congregation, increases are implemented as an entitlement of the position, with great potential for guilt attached to any questioning from the congregation. After all, who is going to propose that the pastor does not deserve a raise unless the pastor was to suggest holding the line themselves? Even then, anecdotal evidence would indicate that it would be unlikely. So we have, when examined objectively, a situation with questionable accountability, limited performance evaluation, and stable increases in a better than average income.

In some post-reformation denominations there is some sort of over-riding administrative body. In that case there may be some more object review, but I have no experience or knowledge in that area.

In summary, how many within the average congregation have the privilege of that level of income, with that level of limited organizational review and accountability? Likely very few.

Next, an alternate model…

A very interesting (and decidedly encouraging) chat with a young Christian brother focused on a perspective many of us as believers needed to be reminded of. This fellow is serving with a missions organization in the Southern Hemisphere, and I thank the Lord for the Skype technology that makes our contact not only possible but amazingly easy and conversational.

In the course of our conversation he used an analogy that may be familiar to some (including as it turns out, my daughter), but which I hadn’t heard and which gave me something to think about.

The analogy characterized the self as a home (house, that is). In that home, we as Christians invite the Lord into our various rooms, communicating and interacting with Him there as appropriate whether it be the Kitchen or the Den. Each area of our home has a relatively level of intimacy attached to it in our demeanor, attitude and internal behaviour. That is, the intimacy of the entry way is quite different from that of the living room, and that affects the relationship offered and shared with those allowed access to either. In case of the Lord, the intimacy of our relationship with Him is reflected in what rooms are open to Him and what rooms, if any, are not. The question, then, is whether we have given Him full access including the bedroom as our most personal and intimate living space.

In fact we should phrase the question as to whether we have invited Him there. In the physical sense, tt is only there that we are open completely, without protection and facade. It is only there that we, by virtue of the reality of going to sleep, must completely let our guard down in order to rest. And it is only there that we awaken to a new day, in many ways setting the tone for our consciousness in the day to come. So it is in our relationship with the Lord. On in the most intimate portion of ourself is there established a genuine relationship with the Lord which sets the tone for our life.

If we have invited that Lord into every room of our being but not the bedroom, then we know Him, and he us, only at arms length. In that case the knowing is at least to some degree intellectual, not personal. With the classic North American (I am not familiar enough with other cultural groups to comment knowledgeably), who frequently has an intellectual approach in their stance in life, this is highly likely to be the case. Further, outward appearance conveys the mindset and not reality, so this situation is not likely to be apparent on the surface.

While our Lord desires that we know Him intellectually (since Scripture states that we are to understand and be able to explain the hope that is within us), He makes it clear that His knowledge of us is to be intimate at every level. We are too abide one within the other. That means that the bedroom of ourselves is a critical aspect of the relationship, in essence opening our Spirit to Him. We can not protect that aspect and truly know Him.

Now it is clear that as a sovereign God He knows us at every level He should wish. However scripture casts the relationship such that He is not pushy in the sense of coming uninvited or unwelcome to our inmost sanctuary. Though we are regenerate through the touch of the Holy Spirit and only thus capable of turning to Him, it is nonetheless only by our freely inviting Him that the relationship is constructed - willingly seeking Him in prayer, Scripture and thought (attitude). Since our mindset determines our stance, it is through leaning on Him for our self-image and value, in whatever might be our places of weakness, that he is invited where we allow or invite no-one else. And in that we have full relationship with Him.

It bears repeating that this is not to say that the intellectual aspect is not both important and encouraged as we seek understanding, but it alone can not lead to a complete knowledge in Him and life in Him. Put another way, one can understand a place but still not live in that place. On that other hand, with the Lord invited and part of the our inmost self, the other types of understanding fall into place as He (note, not we) sees the need and are icing on the cake.

Elisabeth Elliott, in her excellent book Discipline: The Glad Surrender (ISBN 1-85078-302-0), reminds us that the Lord did not promise us sufficient information for intellectual satisfaction on our path in Him. He only promised us enough information to be obedient. That obedience in relationship with Him can only occur and be satisfied when we have invite Him into, and surrendered, the bedroom of our self.

Judging by previous reaction to this direction in articles, I will be jumping even further out into rush hour traffic here, but this needs to be trumpeted irregardless.

What of the individual who hears the Gospel (or doesn’t for that matter) and is saved, but who subsequently accepts a works based paradigm of Salvation, living thereafter as a believer but with the stress of perceived constant jeopardy should his demonstrated ongoing merit not meet the burden of continued salvation, with that burden anything but clearly defined? Worse he or she might be saddled with a definition of that burden delineated by men of authority (church or other).

What of the beleaguered believer for whom every momentary nuance of sin in his or her life brings fear of immediate loss of Salvation until discovered, repented and confessed. And what if it isn’t discovered?

What about the new believer, experiencing the struggles of massive life change (which are predicted in Scripture and normal in the process), wrestling with the past in the present while being told then he or she will loose their Salvation as they struggle moment to moment? Or worse, having their state challenged as by others because they are not sufficiently perfect while in the growth process?

These people are legion. I have met many from each group, and they suffer at the hand of man (their own hands or those to miss-guided others). This is error, not Scriptural, and I would go so far as to say the work and delight of the enemy. These unfortunate soles are done great and harmful disservice by many of the faithful in this ideology of guilt and unsecured redemption. From this comes an interesting consideration.

Does the fact that they hold an erroneous view have any overall effect? Certainly it maintains them in a constant state of perceived instability concerning their own eternal state, frequently with resultant anxiety and possibly a less than joyous existence to one degree or another. If this seems an exaggeration, it is not. Many people react to these matters emotionally. Intellectual explanations, unless accepted emotional, do nothing to reduce the anxiety. It also may cause them to project a similar state upon others that they view as believers? Overall, there is a potentially to exact great misery in normal life. But what of reality?

We must remember from Scripture that what we believe is what saved us, as the primary criteria, not what we did before the fact or even changeable emotional states in the process. We are transformed in the mind, quickened by the Spirit to understand and embrace the Call, and our subsequent belief on Christ is the pivotal factor. Not that action in good works is not part of the equation, but that is after the fact, not causative - again according to Scripture. The good action flows from our new self in Christ.

However the belief we are focusing on here is not the belief on Christ that lead to Salvation. We are focusing on the erroneous beliefs related to the circumstances and scenario after Salvation which govern our ongoing emotions. As such, one must conclude that this means absolutely nothing in terms of eternity. By analogy, after a person has walked out into a sunny day, whether that person insists that the sky is blue or green does not affect it’s objective colour. Or, when a person stands under burgeoning rain clouds, whether or not they accept that it affects them will have no affect upon the reality that the subsequent rain will get them wet if they continue to stand there. Surely there is some humour in this, albeit it dark humour…

We are saved solely through the Grace of God, through the exercise of His Sovereign Will in election before the foundation of the World (Ephesians 1), enabled through the work of the Holy Spirit in applying the wholly sufficient work of Christ to those marked by God. All of this is completely the mandate and action of the Triune God, and nothing of us. Through this God merits and receives all the Glory.

Should he chose by His pleasure to elect and save us, yet we miss-understand the reality after the fact through miss-representation of the process, it matters not a wit as far as I can see. The only effect that might possibly be suggested by some might be that by furthering the miss-understanding and causing misery to others we might accumulate on our own behalf a lesser treasure in Heaven (notice I did not say penalty). But even this is highly questionable and I do not buy it, since there is no sinful intent, and in terms of the present focus it has no effect whatsoever upon our Salvation.

Rejoice in the Glory of the Sovereign work of our Lord in our lives, seeing it as all of Him and nothing of ourselves. What a joy! And what a tragedy for those that might be starved in life of that joyous view of Glory through miss-information which subversively acts to on the all too human desire to appropriate a portion of God’s Sovereignty and Glory for man.

Soli Deo Gloria

For those whose theology, and thereby their perception of eternal assurance, is works based, the words of Elmer Fudd seem to fit nicely. Namely, “Be vewy, vewy afwaid…“. As in A Tale of Two Johns, this of course refers to Mr. Wesley et al and our friends in the Church of Rome, but also to many others within the Evangelical community.

Within the larger post-reformation community, most who accept biblical inerrancy can agree that men (that’s men generically speaking, by the way) start from birth in the world as a Kingdom of Darkness, possessed both literally and figuratively by the Prince of the Air. Scripture is clear about this in numerous passages. The theology derived from Pelageous in the second century or thereabouts, and later evolving into so called Arminianism, effectively stipulates that there is some small degree of personal sovereignty deposited in each individual. This of course implies that they dodged the bullet in the Fall at least partially, and that they were somehow granted a personal portion of God’s complete sovereignty, but that is another issue for later. The proposed outworking of this possession of personal control is that they are able, of their own volition and solely by their own will and purpose, to respond to the Gospel, or not. In this theater, the Gospel is still presented by the Grace of God, but it is the individual, in exercising what can only be called their personal sovereignty, that determines the outcome, irrespective of the intent or wish of God. This script yields even more loose ends concerning the sufficiency and sovereignty of the work of Christ, but that too is another discussion. If the path is followed, with the individual in the final analysis accepting or rejecting the Gospel offer without the intervention of God (aside from the provision of the opportunity), then that individual sovereignty bring with it a subsequent ongoing, persistent responsibility to retain salvation once accepted. In other words, since they decided, then their personal sovereign authority retains the ongoing responsibility to maintain salvation or not. Individual will then is the pivotal component of eternal salvation. Whether that responsibility is exercised through willfully action or negligent inaction is irrelevant. It is still individual. This is indeed a heavy, and we shall see, precarious burden.

To continue, this responsibility must include modes of living that might influence Sanctification, namely that behaviour in line with our Lord’s example and precepts and associated repentance when that does not occur become deterministic. Furthermore, if continued Salvation is determined by ongoing individual actions, then it would logically follow that as imperfect creatures with incomplete Sanctification while still living in the world, each individual would fluctuate between states of Salvation and of not being saved in direct proportion to times of sin, repentance and subsequent forgiveness. There would by definition be frequent times of slipping from Salvation for even the most pious and diligent individual.

Scripture states that life in the human states even after Salvation is one of continued sinfulness to one degree or another. As such, there would be numerous periods of loosing and (potentially) regaining salvation. And the less than diligent Saint would find themselves out of Grace frequently.

All this is to say, as Elmer Fudd so eloquently put it, that virtually every person is effectively only a part-time Saint at best, or worse. More important, even when in a state of Grace, they must be concerned about their precarious state of being at all times! What a state to be in (no pun intended)! It is a condition of constant jeopardy and eternal insecurity. Yikes! Thank goodness that Scripture does not support this, but it is a state that many live in.

The Calvinist, on the other hand, lives in the truth of eternal security. Scripture states that those who are saved are moved to that state through the Hand of God alone. In other words, it is all the sovereignty of God, and none of man. Further, and more to our discussion here, is that those saved by His hand can never be taken (in Scripture, plucked) from it. Note, that Scripture states this as NEVER, not sometimes, possibly, conditionally or maybe. We have the Lord sovereignly saving us, and then, since His sovereignty will can not be denied, retaining us in that state eternally.

Surely Elmer would have said that we then can be “vewy, vewy secure”…

If we look in Scripture, as well as at the definitions used by many Evangelical denominations, we find a description of church leader (ie. Elder) to include a number of attributes and their outworking in certain responsibilities. Although there may be others, all definitions seem to include teaching, preaching, spiritual shepherd, visitation, and holder of some level of local church accountability. These roles may be defined in many ways, but they center on the role of spiritual leader and teacher for the local assembly. What we do not find in the definition is any hint of attributes involving business acumen, organizational strategist, long time member, financial contributor or similar. Those are attributes recognized in the world, while the attributes of a church leader stem from Biblical acumen, knowledge and application, not that of the world.

These leadership attributes (and therefor qualifications) focus clearly on both the spiritual health and biblical enhancement of the local assembly through example, preaching, teaching and exemplary Biblical fellowship, and on the sharing of the Gospel with the unsaved (whether directly or through equipping).

To move a bit further down the church hierarchy to Deacons, we find the practical expression of the tone set by the Elders. That means that the environment that allows the teaching, support and preaching of the Elders becomes the practical responsibility of the Deacons. To draw an analogy, the Elders likely teach or preach most effectively in a heated room, and the Deacons service the furnace to facilitate that heat. A trivial example, but it makes the point.

In this model we have the Elders setting the vision for the assembly, drawing that vision (one would presume) from Scriptural models and their explicit implications.  In many modern churches, following a congregational decision framework, the assembly then approves these visions. However, it is common for this to be little more than a rubber stamping at a church meeting that in effect takes place after the fact. Nonetheless, the vision as set by the Elders normally becomes the official focus for implementation largely as presented.

In this process of setting priorities and subsequent goals for the assembly it would seem safe to assume that the vision would be Biblical in tone, and follow Biblical paradigms in the propagation (both in the congregation and outside it) of both the Word of the Lord and the Gospel message. As such, any other priorities would be assumed to flow from this, as side effect from success in these so to speak. For example, in concentrating upon preaching the word and spreading the Gospel with clarity and truth inside and outside the assembly, the congregation might by the Grace of our Lord alone experience growth, and consequently even need of a larger facility. That growth and its consequences, however, are a result of the performing the work of the Lord, not the primary focus the vision. They are by the Grace of God and not by the process of men.

With this in mind, what do we sometimes observe in reality? Unfortunately, it may be an apparent reversal of the paradigm as demonstrated in the Scripture.

Today, the first vision statement heard could be something like “We envision a congregation of 900-1000 people”, assuming the current one is quite a bit smaller. Or “We envision this place filled to capacity by the end of the year.” Now, dreaming of a great congregation is not bad in itself, but what is wrong here? You got it (I hope). The cart is before the horse. No talk of learning and propagating theological or Biblical truth. No talk of equipping all for evangelism, and of going forth for the Lord and His Kingdom. No talk of expending resources distributing the Word of God without condition. Just vision of growth. Maybe couched with words about using it for the Lord, but with growth first. To put it bluntly - GROWTH IS NOT A BIBLICAL GOAL ITSELF! It is perfectly legitimate if you are a department store, with shareholders. This is wrong, wrong, wrong thinking!

In discussing various approaches to congregational life, Biblical and doctrinal literacy and church priorities, the question arises as to who exactly should be setting, establishing and monitoring these fundamental aspects.

Not only do these issues affect the tone and nature of the assembly, but they often have a resounding though quiet effect on the faith and satisfaction of the lives of believers. This effect is often in direct proportion to their level of involvement, but not within their control or influence it many cases. That is, the more involved people are in church life, the more affected they will be, either for good or for bad. That said, it might be prudent for any adherent to have a close, objective look at the church organizational and power structure (the real one, not the published one), and its health, before getting heavily involved. A little circumspect observation while still somewhat detached can go a long way to avoiding grief and finding joyous satisfaction in cases where change is needed and unlikely to occur.

In the church of today, the techniques of successful secular business are strongly in vogue. These are currently concerned with downloading responsibility, distributing accountability, and the encouragement of strong organizational growth. Church leaders are much enamored of business management gurus and writers, with their growth techniques and operational philosophies. Pastors are just as likely to be reading and championing the latest business strategies as they are Biblical approaches, often even bringing them to the pulpit. Irrespective of whether this is appropriate in a Biblically based organization (in my view it is not, but that is a subject for another discussion), it is the reality of the day and the effects are many and resounding.

When secular management gurus (with completely worldly agendas) are the order of the day for congregational management and guidance, what is the likely result? One could propose that since there is great success in these philosophies and organizational approaches, the church as an organization in decline in recent times could benefit from their techniques. On the surface, when judged with a priority on growth and numerical success, that may well seem true in a pragmatic sense. But is it in line with Biblical priorities? While it occasional may move in parallel, in general my answer would be no.

The Scripture lays out very simple priorities, and none of these include organizational growth for its own sake. They also do not include growth to support resource intensive programs and entertainment. Those are secular, plain and simple. Scripture also clearly lays out the responsibilities of church leadership, and these similarly do not include that focus. Ignoring all the explanatory words one may hear to work around or rationalize the approaches on these issues, the focus is in the wrong place.

Not only that, but as can sometimes ironically be the case, this is quite clear to many of the rank and file in the pews, who comment on it frequently in one form or another (even if they may not be able to articulate it perfectly).

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…

Almost the first phrase that people greet you with when they first meet you is “What do you do?”. Your answer and vocation will in most cases slot you into a category for them, and yield a predefined level of respect and associated attitude toward you. Breaking out of that box once it is assigned to you is often not easy. As such, your initial presentation, irrespective of who you really are or your value, is important. That may be unfortunate and sound superficial, but it is often simple reality in our society. For many people with career and/or professional employment, this plays in their favour.

But what about when you retire? You are not ‘that’ any more. You may be in the process of becoming something else, but since the something else may not have significant monetary value presently it is of little social value in the eyes of many others. What do you do, and how do you adjust?

One strategy is to say you are whateveryouwere-retired. If your previous vocational title had some sort of medical, academic, military or similar status, then you likely can carry that on, garnering whatever social usefulness or advantage it might have. And don’t be fooled, it usually has quite a bit. Position is a tool that will gain advantage or preferential treatment. If that aura of position remains intact in some form, people will most likely treat you as if you were still in the position or close to it. This likely also applies to any person who has had a socially recognized professional designation of some type (eg. engineers, chartered accountants, etc.)

On the other hand, simply ‘retired’ doesn’t cut it in the redeeming social value category. The only exception is in the eyes of those who are drawing close to (or wish they were drawing close to) retirement themselves. If you are well retired financially and health wise, this often accrues great amounts of envy and a certainly related status. Outside of these exceptions, the retired person is viewed by many as doing nothing, and therefor of having no status. This is true even if they are pursuing interesting avenues for themselves. The fact that they are not using whatever skills they have to make money or accrue status of some sort is often viewed as almost unethical.

All this is an interesting backdrop for those who are contemplating retirement or some sort of self-directed period of leave without a finite end date. It says a lot about what modern society values (activities which have income as a goal) and what it does not value (activities for which the primary goal is not income), irrespective of what altruistic words may be offered.

Christian certainly face this directly in contemplating a retirement or extended leave period in which to seek and follow the leading of the Lord. Successfully growing past this hurdle to follow the direction of the Lord, even possibly allowing oneself to “not seek gainful activity” and allow life or direction to unfold, effectively thumbs the nose that the whole societal affair. But from the reports of those treading it, this road has more potholes than one might think.

A Christian brother took early retirement just over a year ago. With a timely set of skills, he went on to establish an relaxed and effective consulting practice which brought satisfaction and remuneration without most of the previous organizational grief. After a year, however, he related that he had finally realized that he was still performing the same old same’old. He had gone back to a form of work based upon programmed expectations. He had not been able to, in fact had not even seen the possibility to, allow himself to simply let things unfold without creating them. Even thought and research into identifying and using his gifts had still fallen into his pre-programming until he realized what was actually going on. With that humongous hurdle at least partially understood, he could finally see meaning in giving himself permission to stop striving in the old way and possibly allow a new direction to emerge. Doing that, however, involved both seeing through and stepping back from a lifelong socially accepted paradigm that also had great emotional value as a undercurrent.

Bravo!!! I applaud his bold realization and his desire to look beyond the world to the Lord’s direction. And more than that, the realization (instructive for us all) of the requirement to stop one paradigm in order to be able to see other possibilities - realizing that without stopping the other possibilities can not appear.

T’would that we all can do precisely that in due time, allowing the space for a new direction  to unfold, irrespective of the expectations of others, the world, and most significantly, ourselves…