Extemporaneous Ramblings

“The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.” Luke 6:45.

A few days ago I heard a sermon on this and a few following verses from Luke. It made a number of good points surrounding human communications difficulties. The thrust of the message was that when words are exchanged (whether good or bad), it is not just the words that are important, but the fact that they implicitly reveal the state of the speaker’s heart. As such, communications problems (in this particular sermon, those between the sexes, often in the heat of the moment) must be addressed as heart issues as much as, if not more than, issues of verbal technique. A very good point! And to take it to the obvious next step, to alter the symptomatic expressions in a vacuum is unlikely to yield real of long lasting success.

Thinking about this, both then and later, it would seem that this principle should be extended to other communications, possibly even less direct modes of communication.

For the moment I wish to address only the case of the believer. For the believer, it struck me that one can delve beyond the initial reality that words expose the heart. The tone of that heart, expressed implicitly through the words, is a reflection or barometer of the speaker’s level of confidence in the Grace of our Lord, in a very personally sense. Surely the major component of the good treasure that is stored up in our hearts is the conviction and confidence that not only are we the Lord’s by His power and not our own, but also that in this belonging is an unchanging reality that was established by Him, not us.

If this is not the case, and if indeed the good or even the bad treasure of our hearts is established even marginally by us, then problems arise and our internity exists on very shakey ground indeed. Scripture states that by virtue of its fallen nature the heart is bad (evil) and that none are worthy to be saved, not one. We are both collectively and individually portrayed as utterly lost in our trespasses and sin. These trespasses and sins are always against God, irrespective of the external circumstance, since He is the standard beyond all circumstance. Since (again from Scripture) bad can not create good of itself, we are without any ability to alter our basic nature. That being the case, intervention from outside our natural state is required for change to occur. There is no other possibility.

If whatever treasure is in the heart is established by us, outside His intervention, it can not be of Him and thereby can not be truly good - that is, of Him. In that case, any apparent good treasure must be from who we are naturally, and be juandiced by that natural state from which it springs. What subsequently issues forth from that heart, appearances not withstanding, in the form of words can not be other than similarly juandiced. This can in no way truly glorify a totally holy God.

Now, in reference to apparent good verbal acts of the unsaved, these are good in the natural sense. They can not, however, appear good to God since their root does not eminate from God. They must therefor fall short before Him no matter how they might appear in the world or what temporal benefit they might exact. They are based in the natural world and its standards of good. They are based on the standards of heaven, which are only achievable through the representation of Christ.

On the other hand, once the heart is changed by the Spirit (again, by the Spirit because the natural man is defined scripturally as completely lost, unable to create good from evil, and thereby unable to change himself) the good exists as the core of his nature, though not completely perfected until sanctification is completed. That path of sanctification, from imperfection to perfection, is certainly one of progressive and at times even faltering change. However, within is the heart claimed by God and regenerated with a core of good. Even at the beginning, but more as the process unfoldes, the heart is progressively purified, and so must be the result in the words issuing from it, irrespective of the topic or situation.

A later point made in the same sermon was that, in the end, the heart issue comes down to the issue of rightness with God - that is, salvation. Clearly this is true, since it is from the movement of the Spirit, as evidenced in salvation, that the change of heart occurs.

All this is to say that though words are a good barometer for the heart, they are an even better barometer for self analysis and accountability within ones self, and within our close family in the Lord. What is required is the courage to examine both aspects of our communications and thier implications. Only we will truly see the dichotomy between our own heart, how we would like it to be, and the evidence of its expression. A powerful tool in the process, and one that should humble us.

Accordingly, the remedy for the communications slips that we all exhibited in our imperfect state is not communications training, but heart training. Since we, as natural men (or women) are incapable of exacting change from our natural state and can not train our own hearts, the only remedy is to humbly seek change from the Lord, in prayer and the Word. That is the only venue for this development.

Further, in this we can only seek His face. Since it is His sovereign hand that exacts the continued change, on His timetable, we can only bring supplication and worship in obedience. Therein lies the solution, the final part being to rest in confidence in His eternal plan, sufficiency and preservation of the elect.

And once again, I never said easy…

“the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart” Matthew 15:18

Did you ever notice that well meaning people can sometimes be a pain the rear end?

In our last installment about pretending to be from a profession that no-one would likely harass you for free advice about, it was out pointed out that many people consider professionals of various sorts to be sources of free advice and counselling. They assume that all you want to talk about is work and you just can’t wait to hear about thier issues. You often can’t get them to stop without being rude, literally. You are then considered as unfeeling and unfriendly. Go figure.

Well, having been bugged this way AGAIN here is the rant…

I go swimming to exercise and to unwind. At the end of the pool between sprints or in the shower at the end, the last thing I want to do is talk about work in any form, particularly about the ills of my particular institution (which are legion) or to dispense free IT advice on someone’s latest problems or point of interest. But it seems one can’t politely escape!

A great workout, nice and relaxed, then 30 minutes of fending of some guy who has nothing better to do that ask me questions that require analysis and discussion. ARGH!!!

Maybe a T shirt that says “Don’t talk to me about work!”. On the other hand that wouldn’t do much good in the shower.

I need a body guard!

PS. No offence to you Florists.

Following on from the previous post, a few more comments on Mark 13…

It is made clear that as the tribulation progresses, the family that is being saved is the family of God, the family of believers. It is the family bound by the blood of the Lord, not necessarily the blood of the flesh (thought those who are related by flesh may be saved). It would also seem that this includes the Angels (the elect of heaven) since they will be gathered “from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven” (verse 27).

In verse 10 we have “The gospel must first be preached to all the nations.” Does this imply, as some propose, that every person in every nation must hear the Gospel? Since ‘all’ is used in many places in the New Testament to indicate not every single person but a reasonable number from some group (eg. ‘all of the city came out’ does not mean every single person but a large representation), then the answer is no. It does seem to indicate, however, that the Gospel will reach every nation at some level. Since one must assume that they would hear it from the body of believers, this indicates that evangelism and missions continue to hold a significant ongoing role in the lead up to the end.

In verses 8, 12 and 13, among others, it is clearly stated that the peoples will be divided at every level of society, even within the nuclear family. When this is followed by “the elect, whom He chose” in verse 20 indicating those who would were appointed to salvation, it is clear that election crosses every boundary of human society and relationship.

Further, since this choice by the Lord was accomplished before the creation was put in place (”He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” Ephesians 1:4), it must be unrelated to any human factor of either individual merit or demerit, or of human relationships, as shown in the divisions discussed above.

So, there we have it in a microcosm - all of Him, according to His original plan alone, working towards His ends alone.

Soli Deo Gloria.

In speaking of the days of tribulation to come, Mark 13:20 states that “Unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose, He shortened the days.” Lorraine Boettner, in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, sums up what this implies: “It is for the sake of the elect that God governs the course of all history”.

Mark goes on, in the remainder of that chapter, to described and caution of various difficulties related to the wrap up the era in those days, culminating in the sudden return of the Lord (Mark 13:26-27).

I had of course read this before, and I had the idea, but the enormity of it struck me personally like lightening this time. Here we have the Lord in effect choreographing the course of all history so that the elect could fulfill their destiny in Him. Election in and of itself certainly implies this, but not in a way that is immediately grasped so starkly and personally.

This means that you and I, as believers, were not only the recipients of salvation and that entire Grace filled process which places us in eternity with Him, but the very course of human history was set in place just as it is so that each individual one of us was guaranteed that eternity. The reality of what has been given here is beyond words!

You may be thinking “What is he going on about! I knew that all along”. Maybe so, but for me it was not in a personal and truly convicted sense, if you get my drift. Knowing, and being convicted of something about you personally, can be different. Nuance possibly, but nonetheless a critical one. One understanding is flat, the other has complete experiential dimension, so to speak. Somehow the realization of the totality of the plan required to support the elect (each unique one) makes the remainder of that chapter all the more a stark reality. It is a call to arms of sorts for the elect, to cleave to the Word alone and to Christ alone, in faith, in the face of what is to come, remembering the scale of what has been crafted for our benefit (and to His glory).

It makes it clear to me that the biblical basics will be the only armour in the times of difficulty (tribulation) ahead of His appearance.

Now, let’s pause a moment to blunt a related argument. If the Lord did as Mark clearly both implies and states, then there has to be an elect. And if Heh chose that elect as the verses state, then there has to be a non-elect. Otherwise Mark’s use of those terms makes no sense.

Beloved, let us, in faith, cling to Him alone and to the Word alone, until the fullness of His plan is revealed.

Have you heard the word Hell or some equivalent in church recently (or even not so recently)? No? Well you don’t appear to be alone. So the question is - What’s up with that?

Similarly, have you heard the word Heaven much, and if so, in what context? You likely have heard it now and then, but not with any great emphasis in the presentation of the Gospel. So again, the question is - What’s up with that?

This doesn’t mean that you haven’t heard some form of the Gospel message, and it doesn’t mean that Salvation is not passionately recommended and preached (though it may not be). But it does say something about the completeness of the message being delivered. And, contrary to what some might propose, completeness here does matter.

The Gospel message is, of course, overwhelmingly one of redemption. But, and it is a big but, the alternative is eternal separation from God and eternity in Hell after death. That is complete message.

When the message is presented, as it often may be today, with just the present needs as motivation to turn to the Lord (that is, you are a sinner and need the Lord in your life now), possibly including any indirect appeal about the benefits of Heaven, but without a clear statement of the eternal consequences of not being saved being layed out, then the entire message is watered down. If the entire picture is not painted, then the wonder of and priority of what is being offered is partially lost.

Is this therefor advocating the weekly preaching of classic fire and brimstone, ad nauseum? Not at all. That would be accentuating the downside of the message, which would be similarly inappropriate. The positive side, to me, should almost always have precedence. However, there must be some balance, and the consequential side must be clearly layed out. If it was not to be included, then the Lord would not have stated it so clearly and repeatedly. And He did emphasize it in Scripture.

The usual justification today for not including anything negative in a presentation of the Gospel is that potential converts or itinerant listeners might be offended. They might be confronted by something that they would find either too negative or disturbing.

In this age of correctness, presenting something negative that might offend some people is unacceptable, especially if you are trying to sell them on or even attract them to something. The key here is that we are not trying to convince anyone of anything. We are not trying to covnince them and we are not trying to convert them. That is not within our mandate from the Lord. That is the sole mandate of the Spirit. Our mandate is to present, completely and honestly.

The other side of the Gospel message should be disturbing. When it is not, then there is something amiss. Part of the message is the reality of the eterenal consequences. Arguably that may not be the most important part, but it is significant.

Let us look at the eventuality of a negative effect on the listener who is faced with the complete message. The reality is that some people will likely be turned off or alienated by a balanced presentation of the clear, complete message. Since there are those who will not be among those who will come to the Lord, that is to be expected. Scripture states that their hearts are hardened to the message. But it is not the presentation of the complete message that hardens their hearts! It is the Spirit that does it, at the bidding of our Father.

As to those who are predestined to be His (Ephesians 1:5), the effectual calling of the Spirit is sovereign and can not be resisted (Romans 8:29-30). The presentation of the complete message in this case is exactly what is needed. Not to say that an over the top or ham-handed delivery might not shock them back momentarily, but that is not what we are considering here. Even then, however, the Spirit can not be resisted since He is acting out God’s sovereign will.

So, let us present the Gospel message in totality. In this, with its presentation of both salvation and the consequences of judgement, is the glory of the Lord’s creative plan displayed as intended. Without Hell, the message of Heaven does not present the glaring difference in destiny that is the reality, and which must be grasped by the listener.

Does anyone read this? I know that some people do, but what part does it play in the process?

When thinking about people reading these articles, or not, I have to muse about what is to be accomplished here. It would be nice to think of these ramblings as read by lots of people, of value in some way to some, and even stimulating comment or thought in a few. Some of that is a genuine desire to help and collaborate, but it is also admittedly ego in desiring to be useful.

Beyond that, however, this is an exercise in exploration. Another blogger commented to me several weeks ago that it was a soapbox where no-one could easily make him shut up. Amusing, and certainly true to a point. But that leads to part of the real attraction. Since no-one stops you, you can persue thought paths where they lead, for yourself as well as others. In most other discussions there is more outside direction and required protocol.

This is possibly self-indulgent, but also potentially quite liberating. If it were an old fashioned journal, scribbled in a steno pad or leather bound notebook, or even typed on an old typewriter, it would be similar. However, with a journal, since it is written almost completely for self and less for others, there is less need to quantify the ideas and express them at least somewhat articulately. This is especially true of a hand written journal, where correction and revision are next to impossible.

So the present medium is a middle ground of sorts. Here we have many of the advantages and benefits of the hand written journal, but with the correct-ability, revis-ability, review-ability, and more, of the electronic notepad. This seems (at least for me) to allow a greater latitude for creative exploration in thought as well as expression. There is no question that with the hand written option, it would be a non-starter for many, including myself.

Combine all this with convenient publication, and it would seem that one has a grand forum…

It’s all about control! Who is in control, that is.

A discussion concerning Reformed Faith and Calvinism stimulated me to put pen to paper about this (actually fingers to keyboard but it sounds so much less poetic).

Before we start let me point out that I am an unapologetic Calvinist. Not a hyper-Calvinist, mind you, just a plain old 5 point, TULIP sniffing believer. I might even be a 4.8 point guy according to Eric Svendsen but that does not affect the present discussion. Along with this position comes belief in the complete Sovereignty of God. Again, total Sovereignty, plain and simple. And the corollary of that Sovereignty is the conviction that God is in Sovereign control, not just in theory but in daily practice. (For those unfamiliar with these terms, here is a link to a primer on Calvinism).

In the above mentioned group discussion we were talking about the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. There were the usual arguments on both sides, and no real resolution, as is often the case. Later, I was musing about how unsatisfying I had found it, and why. Sure, we didn’t agree, and yes, I would like to be agreed with, but that wasn’t the whole story. There was something more fundamental that bothered me.

I realized that what bothered me was that all the difficulties that had been expressed with the Calvinist position implicitly reflected some level of rejection of the absolute Sovereignty of God.

There were great, sensible, laudible reasons that the Arminian position made sense from a human perspective, and it clearly made many things more practical on the surface. But that is totally irrelevant.

The absolute Sovereignty of God is not something of mere lip service. Either he is or he isn’t Sovereign. If he is, then the entire Arminian position on man’s will and its effects falls away. Man does not get to select or create any aspect of his position concerning salvation.

Any rejection of the absolute in absolute Sovereignty immediately begs the question of how much sovereignty and who has it. If man becomes an active agent for his salvation in any degree, then he is in effective control of the paradigm. That makes Natural man by implication a co-creator with God (of the future). As such he is then vested with some sovereignty. If God is a Sovereign God, that is utter nonsense.

To follow that thread just for a moment, man would be responsible for himself to at least some degree. Since the natural man by Scriptural definition in the realm of Satan and thereby predisposed to that paradigm, he is helpless to act outside of it and is incapable of motivating himself in the direction of salvation. He can not be other than who he is. If God is not the sole active agent and the requires man’s co-operation, then he can not and will not act in the direction of salvation. In today’s parlance, man is ‘toast’.

Further, even assuming that there was salvation by this means, then if it was up to the naturual man, with his wordly disposition, whether his salvation continued, his nature would cause him to fail in an instant. None of the saints would perservere.

I have no interest (nor the academic letters and apologetics expertise) in exhaustively expounding the Doctrines of Grace in this forum. My real interest is in the implied ‘control issue’ mentioned at the beginning.

As natural men (and women), we are bound into the paradigm of control. By that is meant assumed self-control and self-determination. This reflects the message of the natural, not the heavenly, realm into which we are born and is thus fundamentally Satanic in nature. Specifically, it assumes that man is under his own control, is able to pull himself up by his bootstraps as needed to accept salvation, and thereby by implication creates his own destiny in Heaven. This assumption is not usually stated this brazenly, but that is the heart of it. It may even be surrounded by niceties about looking to God, but the act and impetus of seeking and accepting salvation as an act of will is still being ascribed to man. As such, it vests the control (sovereignty) to man and not to the Sovereign control of the Lord.

The Sovereign control of God is absolute, or it isn’t sovereign. If even a bit is vested in man, then God is not in control any longer and the implications roll out quickly and widely into chaos and the future unkown.

God has unequivically stated in Scripture that He is absolutely sovereign, and acts at the pleasure of His will (alone). As such, everything is His, everything is controlled by Him and everything is at his disposal. No matter how it might appear from our myopic viewpoint, this means that we can only be called to Him by Him. There can be nothing of us in it in an independent sense, for it is against our nature and outside our sphere of ability as natural men. We are His, and He calls us to Himself, to glorify Himself. If we had an independent role, we would be glorified in the decision, and that is completely outside the stated purpose of creation. It was from the beginning for His glory.

It is always very seductive for natural man to want to give himself an edge in his destiny. It is part of our natural makeup. and is quite understandable. However, though the Father, our Lord, and the Scriptures speak volumes about the Sovereignty of God, they are complete silent on any sovereignty of man. It simply isn’t there, folks, except by interpretational implication - which is man made and even then appears to be a stretch.

This certainly won’t put the discussion to rest, but the helplessness of man and the resultant need that he be called by God into repentance and salvation, seems to me to flow directly from the absolute Sovereignty of God. He alone calls, He alone causes us to come since we are natural men and as such are totally unable to do so, and His sovereign decision can not be changed by us (nor by Him due to His nature as God).

So there you have it. TULIP, what flower could be sweeter…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions, questions, questions…

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.