"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will (Ephesians 1:3-5)" In a matter of a few verses, the apostle Paul articulates one of the most powerful, and beautiful Biblical truths. The doctrine of election which is commonly referred to as "predestination" is also a hotly contested issue. While some want to deny the doctrine of election, it is clear from the Biblical account that God does "predestine" people and events. Though Calvinist and Arminians disagree over the details of this doctrine, both agree on the basics.
God is a sovereign being who has eternal purposes that He is bringing about which will ultimately result in our good and God's glory. Because God is the ultimate authority over all creation including us, it is perfectly within His right and ability to choose whom He wishes for what He wishes. The Biblical word for "predestination" literally means "to determine beforehand" or "to foreordain." The word "predestine" suggests that God predetermines the destiny of whomever. Another Biblical word is "elect" or "election." The word simply means "to chose" and is commonly found referring to God' predestining activity. When it comes to a reference to a person, there is little difference between "predestine" and "election." God has predestined the the destiny of those He has elected.
Election is more than salvation
The doctrine of election is more than about just salvation. While the doctrine of election is primarily seen in relation to one's salvation, we also see that God calls and chooses people to accomplish a particular mission or task. A great example of God's predestining for a particular role is Jesus Himself. The prophet Isaiah speaking of Jesus says "Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen on in whom My soul delights (Isaiah 42:1)" At the transfiguration, God says "This is my son, my chosen one; listen to Him! (Luke 9:35)" Jesus was elected to be a part of the divine plan to redeem and save all mankind. At times, God chooses other individuals for special roles. Examples are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God chose Moses to stand before pharaoh. Jesus chooses disciples. In John 6:70 says, "you did not choose me, but I chose you." God also chose groups not just individuals for special roles. The nation of Israel was chosen to prepare the way for Jesus. With the establishment of a new covenant through Jesus, there is a new elect body chosen, namely the church to serve as the vehicle for the gospel. But while the doctrine of election does include being "chosen for a task or role," it mainly refers to salvation.
Election is "in Christ"
When one begins to understand that God predestines and elects for not only a task or role but that God actually predestines ones' eternal destiny, the common question is "who are these "elect" and why them? This is where Calvinist and Arminians begin to diverge. While Calvinist will argue that election is "unconditional." Arminian theology believes that election is in fact "conditional." God has the right and authority to choose whomever He wants and has the right to determine how people are in fact "chosen." Arminians believe that the Bible gives us a clue to not only what the destiny of people will be but also how He chooses people for that destiny.
The Bible is very clear that every person will face one of two eternal destinies: heaven or hell. The Bible is also very clear that we all deserve to go to Hell but God has chosen instead to offer the gift of grace. Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God has made way for people to not experience the eternal destiny of hell. The Apostle Paul uses the phrase "in Christ" or it equivalent "in Him" repeatedly in Ephesians chapter one to describe those who are predestined. The elect are those who are "in Christ." Election is conditioned on one being "in Christ" or being a Christian. God has the right to choose unconditionally but as instead has chosen to allow us to use our free will to meet a prerequisite, namely faith in Christ, as a condition of salvation. Therefore anyone who puts their faith in Christ are counted among the elect and experience the eternal destiny of heaven.
Election is based on the foreknowledge of God
Again some will argue that God's predestining work is completely unconditional, The Bible shows that God not only set conditions to election, He knows who will meet those condition. The apostle Peter says in 1st Peter 1:2 says "To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. Peter is writing to the elect who were known "according to God's foreknowledge. The apostle Paul echoes this in Romans 8:29 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Foreknowledge simply means "to know something before hand." God knew before hand who would meet the conditions of salvation and chose them for a particular eternal destiny. Paul says that the eternal destiny of those foreknown is to be "conformed to the likeness of [God's] Son."
Election is corporate, individual, or both?
Among, non-Calvinist and Arminians, there is debate over rather or not election is simply corporate or if it does refer to specific individuals. Some point to the election of the nation of Israel and even the church as proof that God elects corporate bodies and not individuals. While it is true that election in the Bible does refer to corporate groups, to deny that God also chooses individuals for salvation is an over reaction to Calvinism. In Romans 8:28-29, Paul does not just have a collective group of people in mind but also individual persons. Later in Romans 16:13, an early Christian named Rufus is called an elect person. Revelations 17:8 implies that specific names are written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. Jesus says in Luke 10:20 that we should "rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven." We are more than a collective group without individuality to God. He knows our names and recorded them in the book of life before He ever created the world.
Election is pastoral
Life is hard. Life can be crooked and painful. Sometimes we need to know that God cares and is involved in our world. The doctrine of election shows that God is in fact involved in our world. We share a special place in the heart of God. When Peter wrote his letter of 1st Peter, he was writing to Christian who were scattered and suffering. He opens his letter by calling them God's "elect exiles." Peter wanted these people who are suffering to know that they were special to God. God cared about them. God had a plan and they were a part of it. The primary purpose of the doctrine of election is pastoral. The doctrine of election is one of the most precious doctrines that the church has. It should be taught to those who are struggling with life. It should be a source of encouragement those those in pain. It should be a reminder to all Christians that God has a plan, an eternal purpose that He will see to its completion.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
The Future of Restoration Colleges
Last month, I posed a question about whether or not a Restorationist could be a Calvinist or not. In that post, briefly mentioned Restoration Colleges and how they are not being "infiltrated" (for a lack of a better word) by Calvinist. Today, I came across an interesting article on the Christian Standard website about Restoration colleges and how they are seeing a growing number of students from other theological backgrounds attending. The article does not specifically address Calvinism but it is an interesting look at what is happening in Restoration movement colleges and what the future holds for them.
The article contains a collection of Deans and Presidents from different colleges commenting on this growing trend and with a growing number of Restoration colleges changing their names and broadening their courses some are concerned that this could lead to a diluted message. J. Kevin Ingram, president of Manhattan (Kansas) Christian College, adds, “I also worry that we can potentially be watering down our movement’s key tenets and distinctive viewpoints on Scripture and doctrine. I love the fact that we are ‘not the only Christians’ and strive to be ‘Christians only,’ but we must make sure that as others join us we don’t let it change our firm beliefs on matters like baptism and Communion.” I do hear and feel Ingram's concern but the article also notes how many are changing their theological view to become more in line with that of the Restoration movement. This means we are having an influence on the larger church scene.
My own Alma mater, Point University (aka. Atlanta Christian College) was represented. President Dean Collins of Point University notes that only 20% of current students have roots in Restoration Churches. Florida Christian College ( the nearest Restoration College near me, my Youth Pastor is an "alum") says that about 40% of currents students come from Restoration churches. Ultimately, I agree with Micheal Sweeney the President of Emmanuel Christian Seminary when he says "Overall, I regard it as a very positive thing for us. The Restoration Movement is not supposed to be a ‘denomination’ or even a set of doctrines. It is supposed to be more of a worldview, an approach to Scripture and faith built upon the insights of such men as Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and others—who in turn, were building on the work of many great saints before them"
Now understand I am not an alarmist and don't think this is a bad thing. I think that it is great for our colleges. I am ultimately interested in how many of these students who don't come from Restoration roots graduate and go into Restoration Churches. What does this mean for the future of the church and especially the Restoration Movement?
You can read the article for yourself by following the link below:
http://christianstandard.com/2012/03/christian-church-colleges/
The article contains a collection of Deans and Presidents from different colleges commenting on this growing trend and with a growing number of Restoration colleges changing their names and broadening their courses some are concerned that this could lead to a diluted message. J. Kevin Ingram, president of Manhattan (Kansas) Christian College, adds, “I also worry that we can potentially be watering down our movement’s key tenets and distinctive viewpoints on Scripture and doctrine. I love the fact that we are ‘not the only Christians’ and strive to be ‘Christians only,’ but we must make sure that as others join us we don’t let it change our firm beliefs on matters like baptism and Communion.” I do hear and feel Ingram's concern but the article also notes how many are changing their theological view to become more in line with that of the Restoration movement. This means we are having an influence on the larger church scene.
My own Alma mater, Point University (aka. Atlanta Christian College) was represented. President Dean Collins of Point University notes that only 20% of current students have roots in Restoration Churches. Florida Christian College ( the nearest Restoration College near me, my Youth Pastor is an "alum") says that about 40% of currents students come from Restoration churches. Ultimately, I agree with Micheal Sweeney the President of Emmanuel Christian Seminary when he says "Overall, I regard it as a very positive thing for us. The Restoration Movement is not supposed to be a ‘denomination’ or even a set of doctrines. It is supposed to be more of a worldview, an approach to Scripture and faith built upon the insights of such men as Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and others—who in turn, were building on the work of many great saints before them"
Now understand I am not an alarmist and don't think this is a bad thing. I think that it is great for our colleges. I am ultimately interested in how many of these students who don't come from Restoration roots graduate and go into Restoration Churches. What does this mean for the future of the church and especially the Restoration Movement?
You can read the article for yourself by following the link below:
http://christianstandard.com/2012/03/christian-church-colleges/
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Arminianism 101: Depravity
Humanity is more than flesh and bone. Humanity is both a physical and spiritual being. Adam was formed by a loving Creator who breathed the animating breath of life into his lungs. Man is relational as well as emotional. He has a heart, a mind and was gifted with a will that was free to chose. Man is the proud bearer of God's very image. With God as king and man as servant, humanity originally experienced the blessing of meaningful work, abundant life, and ultimately a perfect existence. The Hebrew Prophets had a word for this perfection, they called it "shalom." Humanity experienced "a rich state of affairs in which natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its Creator...opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom He delights. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be. (Not The Way Its Suppose to Be by Cornelius Plantinga Jr pg. 10)." But the perfection would not last. Our first parents blinded by a lie reached to snatch
the crown of divinity forever disfiguring themselves and the generations to
come with rebellious tendencies. As a result of their uprising, they experienced
not only separation from God, but the great divorce of body and soul. Their rebellion brought with it both physical and spiritual death. Shalom was violated. Sin had entered and all their posterity would suffer the consequences.
Depravity
Sin is corrosive. Sin pollutes everything it touches. Sin brings with it guilt and condemnation. We have broken God's law. We have rebelled against Him. We are guilty of a crime. But sin has also seeped into the very nature of humanity. Man is a sinner by nature and choice. Sin is not just what humanity does, it is who they are (Ephesians 2:3, Romans 7:18). The once proud bearer of God's image is now tarnished. This effect that sin has on the nature of humanity is called "depravity." Humanity suffers from both guilt and depravity. So how bad has sin effected humanity? What is the damage caused by this rebellion? How has sin devastated God's creation? There are two commonly held views of sin's effect on human nature, total and limited.
Depravity that is Total
Since the fall of Adam and Eve, all humanity inherits from our first parents a corrupt nature and is inclined toward evil no as Adam and Even where inclined toward good (Romans 3:10-11; 1st Corinthians 2:4). As a consequence of this fallen state man's will is no longer naturally free to choose God apart from supernatural work of God's Spirit. This condition is called "total depravity." The doctrine of total depravity is commonly linked solely to the Calvinist's Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) but is also held by classical Arminians. The doctrine of total depravity or "total inability" does not mean that people are as evil as they could be but that sin has effected every aspect of human nature. Our heart, mind and will have all been polluted by sin's stain. This means that humanity in its natural fallen state is not able to think, will, nor do anything good in and of themselves, including merit favor from God, save ourselves from judgment and condemnation of God that we deserve for our sin, or even believe the gospel without God first taking the initiative. While Calvinist believe that God must completely change our nature (i.e regeneration) so that we can believe, Arminians believe that God "frees" the enslaved will to be able to respond with faith (John 16:8-11). This prevenient act of grace by God came through the cross of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit and freed the will of humanity enabling all to have the ability to now respond by faith to the gospel.
Depravity that is Limited
Some Restorationist seem to shy away from the doctrine of total depravity, for what I would refer too as a view of "limited" depravity. This is the view of Arminian and Restorationist theologian, Jack Cottrell. Cottrell believes that we are not born with a sinful condition and that any effect that sin has on us comes through our own sin. While sin does corrupt the nature, man is not totally corrupt and in his new natural state, his depravity is limited by the prevenient gracious act of God through the cross of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit which allows him to respond favorably to the gospel. I believe the difference between Cottrell, Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is that in Semi-Pelagianism sin has only had a partial effect on human nature and in Pelagianism there is no effect at all. Cottrell believes that sin could have "totally corrupted us, it doesn't due to prevenient grace or what he calls "original grace" based on his view of Romans 5:12-21 (see his book, The Faith Once for All for a more detailed account of his view). In my opinion and at least to my understanding, Cottrell's view still fits in an Arminian understanding of depravity.
Depravity that is Sufficient
When one theologian was asked if he believed in total depravity, he said "I believe in sufficient depravity." No matter what camp you find yourself, whether the total depravity camp or limited depravity camp (I personally tend to lean towards total depravity) sin's effect on human nature is sufficient enough to separate us from God. Jesus says in John 3:3 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God (ESV)." Jesus goes on to talk about our need to be "born of the Spirit." Jesus obliviously sees that there is something wrong with who we are and something needs to change and we cannot change it ourselves but need to the Spirit to do it. The Bible teaches us that we are sinners by nature and choice. Humanity in his natural fallen state is separated from God and only through the grace of God can the hostility between God and man be put to rest. No one comes to the Jesus unless God first draws him (John 6:44). Faith is a response to God's gracious call and when we accept that call we are given a new nature by God the Spirit. Only by the grace of God can we once again experience true "shalom."
Depravity
Sin is corrosive. Sin pollutes everything it touches. Sin brings with it guilt and condemnation. We have broken God's law. We have rebelled against Him. We are guilty of a crime. But sin has also seeped into the very nature of humanity. Man is a sinner by nature and choice. Sin is not just what humanity does, it is who they are (Ephesians 2:3, Romans 7:18). The once proud bearer of God's image is now tarnished. This effect that sin has on the nature of humanity is called "depravity." Humanity suffers from both guilt and depravity. So how bad has sin effected humanity? What is the damage caused by this rebellion? How has sin devastated God's creation? There are two commonly held views of sin's effect on human nature, total and limited.
Depravity that is Total
Since the fall of Adam and Eve, all humanity inherits from our first parents a corrupt nature and is inclined toward evil no as Adam and Even where inclined toward good (Romans 3:10-11; 1st Corinthians 2:4). As a consequence of this fallen state man's will is no longer naturally free to choose God apart from supernatural work of God's Spirit. This condition is called "total depravity." The doctrine of total depravity is commonly linked solely to the Calvinist's Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) but is also held by classical Arminians. The doctrine of total depravity or "total inability" does not mean that people are as evil as they could be but that sin has effected every aspect of human nature. Our heart, mind and will have all been polluted by sin's stain. This means that humanity in its natural fallen state is not able to think, will, nor do anything good in and of themselves, including merit favor from God, save ourselves from judgment and condemnation of God that we deserve for our sin, or even believe the gospel without God first taking the initiative. While Calvinist believe that God must completely change our nature (i.e regeneration) so that we can believe, Arminians believe that God "frees" the enslaved will to be able to respond with faith (John 16:8-11). This prevenient act of grace by God came through the cross of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit and freed the will of humanity enabling all to have the ability to now respond by faith to the gospel.
Depravity that is Limited
Some Restorationist seem to shy away from the doctrine of total depravity, for what I would refer too as a view of "limited" depravity. This is the view of Arminian and Restorationist theologian, Jack Cottrell. Cottrell believes that we are not born with a sinful condition and that any effect that sin has on us comes through our own sin. While sin does corrupt the nature, man is not totally corrupt and in his new natural state, his depravity is limited by the prevenient gracious act of God through the cross of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit which allows him to respond favorably to the gospel. I believe the difference between Cottrell, Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is that in Semi-Pelagianism sin has only had a partial effect on human nature and in Pelagianism there is no effect at all. Cottrell believes that sin could have "totally corrupted us, it doesn't due to prevenient grace or what he calls "original grace" based on his view of Romans 5:12-21 (see his book, The Faith Once for All for a more detailed account of his view). In my opinion and at least to my understanding, Cottrell's view still fits in an Arminian understanding of depravity.
Depravity that is Sufficient
When one theologian was asked if he believed in total depravity, he said "I believe in sufficient depravity." No matter what camp you find yourself, whether the total depravity camp or limited depravity camp (I personally tend to lean towards total depravity) sin's effect on human nature is sufficient enough to separate us from God. Jesus says in John 3:3 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God (ESV)." Jesus goes on to talk about our need to be "born of the Spirit." Jesus obliviously sees that there is something wrong with who we are and something needs to change and we cannot change it ourselves but need to the Spirit to do it. The Bible teaches us that we are sinners by nature and choice. Humanity in his natural fallen state is separated from God and only through the grace of God can the hostility between God and man be put to rest. No one comes to the Jesus unless God first draws him (John 6:44). Faith is a response to God's gracious call and when we accept that call we are given a new nature by God the Spirit. Only by the grace of God can we once again experience true "shalom."
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Review: The Transforming Power of Grace by Thomas C. Oden
Oden sets out to show grace at every moment of the Christian experience. Grace can be divided into five kinds or even stages: prevening, convicting, justifying, cooperating, and persevering. In describing these five stages of grace, Oden writes "human freedom is thereby assisted from beginning to end to become awakened to sin and unfeignedly aware of divine mercy. The work of salvation at every step remains God's own act, leading first to repentance, then to forgiveness and justification, adoption, union with Christ, and sanctification of the whole of one's life (pg. 46)."
But Oden is not only interested in grace's effect on a person's conversion but also the work of common grace and also the mystery of God's foreknowledge and our election. Oden offers a great chapter dealing with the heresy of Pelagiansim. Oden says Pelagianism errs by assuming that the appropriation of God's action can proceed without God's grace (pg. 113)."
Oden finishes his work on grace by showing that grace is more than just an abstract idea but involves real people. Grace is a part of real history and involves real people. Grace is something that everyone experiences. Every Christian has their own story of God's grace in their life. In chapter 10, Oden traces the finger prints of grace through the entire Biblical narrative. Finally, in chapter 11, Oden traces grace through the order of salvation from its initial call to its our ultimate decision.
While at times, one may forget that grace is not an impersonal force but in fact God's disposition towards the sinner, Oden manages to express the depth and beauty of grace. Oden is not for the average reader but has written a definitive work on what is the defining feature of the Christian faith.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
New Resoursces
Be sure to check out the "Reviewed Resources" page for recommended websites, blogs, books, and articles.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
3 Generations, 3 Eras, 3 Churches
As someone who not only grew up in the church but also leads the church, I have seen the church change. When I was a small child the church we attended did hymns, and I would say it was a "traditional style" of church. Then when we moved and changed churches, the new church was a more "contemporary style" of church. For years this has been how we have defined our churches. The common question is whether your church is traditional or contemporary? As a young leader of the church, I am looking to the future wondering where I am to lead it. But as I look at the larger American church, I am not sure "contemporary" really describes the new direction of the church. I believe the modern church can be divided into three eras: traditional, contemporary, and missional. Each are unique but also borrows from the last. They are the next generations answer to the one who came before it. Contemporary is a response to Traditional, while Missional is a response to Contemporary.
But to divide each era by worship style or even by generation would be an over simplification. Also since they do share some things in common it may be hard to really discern the difference between them solely by using worship style or generation. For instance, the new missional era of the church is using both hymns and chorus but it is distinct from the Traditional and Contemporary eras. You may be able to walk into a some of the newer churches and say "well this looks just like a contemporary church to me" when in fact they are not really contemporary. It is better to distinguish the three eras in a different way. I believe there are three areas that help distinguish the three eras from each other: theology, philosophy, and ecclesiology. Once you look at the different theological emphasis, philosophical beliefs, church structure, and then just the practical ways they do things then the different eras begin to show themselves.
Before I get to far, I want offer a word of caution and understanding. To often, we can be too critical about the generations that came before us. While critiquing the church is a valuable and needed skill as leaders, we can forget that for many of the leaders of the previous generation they served with all their heart. They did the best they could. Every leader has the responsibility to reach their generation for Christ. We often times see the negatives of the generation before us at the cost of the good things they did. I consider myself a "contemporary baby." While I did go to a traditional church as a child, my formative years where spent in the contemporary church. It was in a contemporary church that I became a Christian. But more important, it was in the contemporary church that my parents found and served Jesus. So I am personally grateful for the contribution of the leaders during the contemporary era because they helped to reach my parents and ultimately me for Christ. So while the Traditional church is not my preference, and while I look to improve on what the contemporary era did, I respect both and the leaders who lead them.
Theology
The difference between the different eras is not that one believes in God and another doesn't. The real difference comes in where each era chooses to place the theological emphasis. This theological emphasis manifests itself in how people dress, songs they sing, and style of sermons that are preached. In the Traditional era/church the emphasis is on what I call the "fear of God." God is transcendent. God is to be revered. In the Traditional church, dress is formal, songs are doctrinal, and preaching is theological. The Contemporary era/church's emphasis is what I call the "love of God." In the Contemporary era/church, God became more accessible. Jesus became our friend. Songs became more intimate, dress became less formal and people where invited to come "as they are." Pragmatism came to define preaching. In the Missional era, the emphasis is on what I call the "glory of God." The Missional church tries to recapture the fear of God yet no lose the love of God. New songs reflect a more theological depth, hymns are rewritten yet they still reflect an intimacy between God and the worshiper. Liturgy and other traditional elements are reintroduced to services. While formal doctrine is reintroduced into preaching. Because each era has a different emphasis theologically this leads each to think differently philosophically.
Philosophy
Philosophically, the Traditional era is "member-focused." The emphasis is on those who are already in the pew. Discipleship is a key component of the Traditional era. The Contemporary church is "seeker-focused." The Contemporary era tries to create a church that is accessible to the "unchurched." The Contemporary era understood that people entering church were not always familiar with our church lingo, so they became intentional about the environment that they created so that seekers could feel welcome. The Missional era has tried to embrace the good of both the Contemporary and Traditional churches by being "mission-focused." The Missional church like the Contemporary is intentional about its interactions with seekers and the unchurched while not neglecting those already in the pew. Missional churches empower members through discipleship to accomplish mission through personal evangelism. Both the Contemporary and Missional church want to create an environment that is comfortable for the unchurched to come into. The Contemporary church simply seeks to create a church for the unchurched who are coming to them, while the Missional church tends to send people out so then they can bring unchurched back in. Then due to their philosophical presuppositions, this lead each era to view the church itself in different ways.
Ecclesiology
Both the Traditional and Contemporary eras centralized the church. The church was a focal point of the Christian life. Programs, outreach projects, and events are held at the church and designed to introduce people to the church. The Missional era/church leans towards decentralization of the church. The church is not necessarily the focal point of the Christian life. Programs, outreach projects, and events are not always held at the church and are designed to introduce people to other people. Do to the externally focused nature of both the Contemporary and Missional eras, the church is designed to help assimilate the new people into the Christian life and church. Because the Traditional era/church tends to be more internally focused, the church is not specifically designed for assimilation. The Traditional era/church tends also to put emphasis on discipleship while the Contemporary era emphasizes evangelism. The Missional era has tried to incorporate discipleship and evangelism together teaching that evangelism is a natural outflow of discipleship.
Closing Thought About the Missional Era
When I was in Bible college, I was handed the "Purpose-Driven model" of church and told "this is how we do church now." The expectation was that I would take the Purpose-Driven model and apply it to whatever church or ministry I entered and that is what I did. In fact, when I got to the church, the Senior Minister at the time (I was the youth guy) had already begun. I had to read both Purpose-driven church and Purpose-driven youth ministry and when I got to my first church I had to read Purpose-driven life. Don't get me wrong, I do think they where valuable but by the time I became the Senior guy at my church, I wanted something different. I didn't want to just use the model I was handed. So I began to check out what is going on in the church at large and that is where I begun to see what I am calling the Missional era. As I look at what I would consider to be this new age of the church, I observe two streams ( I plan to do another post and explore these two streams more in depth). These two streams have been called by different names: emerging and emergent (if that isn't confusing enough) I tend to refer to them as The Progressive and The Resurgence. I believe both are missional in approach and I believe that both have valuable things to offer the church. I personally tend to lean towards the "resurgence" more the the "progressive" side, but as a member of the Restoration movement I think that we need to find a middle ground. This is essentially what I suggested in an earlier post called "A Letter to Young Restorers." No matter what as leaders we must understand the church we are in, and listen to where the Lord wants us to lead.
Final Thoughts....Really!
Though these different eras of the church are different from each other, they do have somethings in common with each other. I am not suggesting that the Traditional era doesn't evangelize and the Contemporary doesn't practice discipleship. I am also not suggesting that the Missional era is the only one concerned with the glory of God. What I am suggesting is that like a person, we can tell what is important to a church by where they place their emphasis. Whether we are leaders of a Traditional or Contemporary church or we are trying to lead our church to become missional, we must understand and help our people understand that the difference between Traditional, Contemporary and Missional is more than a matter of music or age.
But to divide each era by worship style or even by generation would be an over simplification. Also since they do share some things in common it may be hard to really discern the difference between them solely by using worship style or generation. For instance, the new missional era of the church is using both hymns and chorus but it is distinct from the Traditional and Contemporary eras. You may be able to walk into a some of the newer churches and say "well this looks just like a contemporary church to me" when in fact they are not really contemporary. It is better to distinguish the three eras in a different way. I believe there are three areas that help distinguish the three eras from each other: theology, philosophy, and ecclesiology. Once you look at the different theological emphasis, philosophical beliefs, church structure, and then just the practical ways they do things then the different eras begin to show themselves.
Before I get to far, I want offer a word of caution and understanding. To often, we can be too critical about the generations that came before us. While critiquing the church is a valuable and needed skill as leaders, we can forget that for many of the leaders of the previous generation they served with all their heart. They did the best they could. Every leader has the responsibility to reach their generation for Christ. We often times see the negatives of the generation before us at the cost of the good things they did. I consider myself a "contemporary baby." While I did go to a traditional church as a child, my formative years where spent in the contemporary church. It was in a contemporary church that I became a Christian. But more important, it was in the contemporary church that my parents found and served Jesus. So I am personally grateful for the contribution of the leaders during the contemporary era because they helped to reach my parents and ultimately me for Christ. So while the Traditional church is not my preference, and while I look to improve on what the contemporary era did, I respect both and the leaders who lead them.
Theology
The difference between the different eras is not that one believes in God and another doesn't. The real difference comes in where each era chooses to place the theological emphasis. This theological emphasis manifests itself in how people dress, songs they sing, and style of sermons that are preached. In the Traditional era/church the emphasis is on what I call the "fear of God." God is transcendent. God is to be revered. In the Traditional church, dress is formal, songs are doctrinal, and preaching is theological. The Contemporary era/church's emphasis is what I call the "love of God." In the Contemporary era/church, God became more accessible. Jesus became our friend. Songs became more intimate, dress became less formal and people where invited to come "as they are." Pragmatism came to define preaching. In the Missional era, the emphasis is on what I call the "glory of God." The Missional church tries to recapture the fear of God yet no lose the love of God. New songs reflect a more theological depth, hymns are rewritten yet they still reflect an intimacy between God and the worshiper. Liturgy and other traditional elements are reintroduced to services. While formal doctrine is reintroduced into preaching. Because each era has a different emphasis theologically this leads each to think differently philosophically.
Philosophy
Philosophically, the Traditional era is "member-focused." The emphasis is on those who are already in the pew. Discipleship is a key component of the Traditional era. The Contemporary church is "seeker-focused." The Contemporary era tries to create a church that is accessible to the "unchurched." The Contemporary era understood that people entering church were not always familiar with our church lingo, so they became intentional about the environment that they created so that seekers could feel welcome. The Missional era has tried to embrace the good of both the Contemporary and Traditional churches by being "mission-focused." The Missional church like the Contemporary is intentional about its interactions with seekers and the unchurched while not neglecting those already in the pew. Missional churches empower members through discipleship to accomplish mission through personal evangelism. Both the Contemporary and Missional church want to create an environment that is comfortable for the unchurched to come into. The Contemporary church simply seeks to create a church for the unchurched who are coming to them, while the Missional church tends to send people out so then they can bring unchurched back in. Then due to their philosophical presuppositions, this lead each era to view the church itself in different ways.
Ecclesiology
Both the Traditional and Contemporary eras centralized the church. The church was a focal point of the Christian life. Programs, outreach projects, and events are held at the church and designed to introduce people to the church. The Missional era/church leans towards decentralization of the church. The church is not necessarily the focal point of the Christian life. Programs, outreach projects, and events are not always held at the church and are designed to introduce people to other people. Do to the externally focused nature of both the Contemporary and Missional eras, the church is designed to help assimilate the new people into the Christian life and church. Because the Traditional era/church tends to be more internally focused, the church is not specifically designed for assimilation. The Traditional era/church tends also to put emphasis on discipleship while the Contemporary era emphasizes evangelism. The Missional era has tried to incorporate discipleship and evangelism together teaching that evangelism is a natural outflow of discipleship.
Closing Thought About the Missional Era
When I was in Bible college, I was handed the "Purpose-Driven model" of church and told "this is how we do church now." The expectation was that I would take the Purpose-Driven model and apply it to whatever church or ministry I entered and that is what I did. In fact, when I got to the church, the Senior Minister at the time (I was the youth guy) had already begun. I had to read both Purpose-driven church and Purpose-driven youth ministry and when I got to my first church I had to read Purpose-driven life. Don't get me wrong, I do think they where valuable but by the time I became the Senior guy at my church, I wanted something different. I didn't want to just use the model I was handed. So I began to check out what is going on in the church at large and that is where I begun to see what I am calling the Missional era. As I look at what I would consider to be this new age of the church, I observe two streams ( I plan to do another post and explore these two streams more in depth). These two streams have been called by different names: emerging and emergent (if that isn't confusing enough) I tend to refer to them as The Progressive and The Resurgence. I believe both are missional in approach and I believe that both have valuable things to offer the church. I personally tend to lean towards the "resurgence" more the the "progressive" side, but as a member of the Restoration movement I think that we need to find a middle ground. This is essentially what I suggested in an earlier post called "A Letter to Young Restorers." No matter what as leaders we must understand the church we are in, and listen to where the Lord wants us to lead.
Final Thoughts....Really!
Though these different eras of the church are different from each other, they do have somethings in common with each other. I am not suggesting that the Traditional era doesn't evangelize and the Contemporary doesn't practice discipleship. I am also not suggesting that the Missional era is the only one concerned with the glory of God. What I am suggesting is that like a person, we can tell what is important to a church by where they place their emphasis. Whether we are leaders of a Traditional or Contemporary church or we are trying to lead our church to become missional, we must understand and help our people understand that the difference between Traditional, Contemporary and Missional is more than a matter of music or age.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
A Letter to Young Restorers
Young Restorers,
As more of us young leaders of the Restoration movement
transition into the new leaders of the movement, we must ask ourselves what the
future will look like. It is up to us to move the church of Jesus Christ and specifically
its expression of the Churches of Christ and Independent Christian church forward.
We have the responsibility to move the ball down the field of sorts. But what
will the Restoration movement look like when we are done? What will the next
generation of Restorers find when it’s their turn to lead? These along with “how
do we reach the next generation for Christ” are among the important questions
facing us as young leaders of not only the Restoration movement but of the
church.
As we take the lead and move forward we must look both to
the past and to what’s happening naturally already within the church for principles
that will not only guide but help define the next generation of the
Restoration. These principles will help create the tent of the Restoration
movement and allow for us to stay focused and help us leave a healthy church
and movement for future restorers. As young restorers we must look to our past
and recapture for ourselves the heart and basic ideas of Restoration. But while
we are looking back we must not ignore the new things that God is doing in the
church of today. Both our past and our present can help our future. What
follows are four principles that I offer as guides for us moving forward. Two
are rooted in our history as a movement and two are things happening organically
within the church of today.
The Apostle’s
Doctrine
Historically, the Restoration movement has been a
movement dedicated to restoring the church to the church of the New Testament.
It has always seen the book of Acts as a primarily a ecclesiological example. But
the New Testament also strongly encourages us to “guard our doctrine” and to “preach
the word.” Theology and doctrine must not be a passing interest or simply
something we “once studied.” In a present church where pragmatism has made its
home in the pulpit, Biblical doctrine must make a comeback. We must once again
become theologically savoy and our theology must be both Biblical, and systematic.
Our theological convictions must be
strong and our peaching must be clear and authoritative. But we must not bring Doctrinal preaching back
at the cost of our pragmatism. While the New Testament writers teach doctrinal
truths those truths are not void of practical application. As young restorers
we must recapture “practical theology.” We must not shy away from swimming in
the depths of theology and doctrine while not forgetting the simplicity of the
Gospel. More than just pastors or motivational speakers, the Restoration
movement moving forward needs theologians to once again grace its pulpits.
Unity
Unity has been another historical facet of Restoration
Movement. In fact, unity has been the primary focus of restoration. Unfortunately
this has been one area of weakness within not just our movement but the church
at large. While some may say that unity is a naive dream, it is a Biblical
mandate that cannot be ignored. Jesus commands unity among His people therefore
it is not an optional guideline but an essential part of church life. With the
erosion of Biblical authority taking place among some of the mainline denominations,
we must be willing to reach across denominational barriers to find unity with
all our brothers and sisters in Christ. The name on the sign can no longer be a
reason for separation. Networks can be formed among different churches no
matter of their theological traditions to serve the needs of communities. Despite
theological differences, relationships should be built with fellow leaders for mutual
encouragement and edification. The original restorers did not simply want to
complain about the church then become separatists doing their own thing. They
wanted to have an influence on the whole church. Restoration was meant for “THE”
church not just a select group. When we seek unity among all our brothers and
sisters in Christ, then the church is restored to the church Jesus always
intended.
Missional Churches
Emerging among the modern church of today is the new buzz
word “missional.” While different groups may define “missional” differently the
point is still the same. The church can no longer be a holy huddle for the
devoted disciple. Jesus has given his church a mission. What has been growing organically
in the modern church is a desire to do more than profess our love for Christ
but putting that love on display. Churches have become interested in social
justices. Churches are looking for ways to improve the communities that they
find themselves in. Food pantries and other outreach projects are started to
show that the church really cares about the people around them. The church is
becoming externally focused. Also while the church should find ways to be
involved in the social issues in their community we must not forget that the mission
given by Jesus is to “preach the gospel to the whole world” and “to make
disciples.” As young restorers, we should not forget the social needs our
world, but we also must not forget the spiritual needs of our world. We are to
take Christ to culture. We are to be heralds of the Gospel. We can feed people
but if we are not feeding them the “bread of life” then we have only stopped
their suffering for a moment but not for eternity.
Spirit-filled
In my personal experience in the Restoration movement,
the Holy Spirit has been treated like a weird uncle that we only invite to
family reunions but we ignore his friend invites on Facebook. Too often, we
have stirred clear of the Holy Spirit due to a fear of being too charismatic or
being confused with Pentecostals. But moving forward we must recapture a robust
doctrine of the person and work of the Holy Spirit. While the church is about
Jesus, we must not forget the important role of the Spirit in the life of the
church. It is the Spirit who woos, draws, and convicts the sinner. It is the
Spirit who enables, empowers, and regenerates the repentant believer. It is the
Spirit who teaches, guides, and directs the disciple and it is the Spirit who
picks, equips, and aims leaders. We
often allow theological tradition and personal feelings to define for us what
it means to be “Spirit-filled.” But we must not allow others to define for us
what Jesus has already shown us. Jesus tells us that it is better for us that
He leaves and the Spirit comes. We should take Him at His word. If Jesus
believes we are better with the Spirit, then we are. What could our churches
and our movement look like, if we preach and proclaim the power of the Holy Spirit?
If we allowed the Holy Spirit to aim us as leaders towards the mountains that
Jesus wants us to climb? What will it look like if we allow the Spirit to move
in our church? It would look like the church of the New Testament.
As young leaders of the church and of the Restoration
movement, we must not take the role lightly. We must embrace the importance and
magnitude of such an honor. God has entrusted us with His church and His movement.
What kind of movement will the next generation find in our wake? What kind of
church will the guy who takes over for you find when you are gone?
Sincerely,
Fellow Young Restorer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)