My Story
First, I want to nail my colors to the mast. I am greatly committed to the local church. I believe a failure to do so is a failure to understand the Gospel because God is saving a people [which of course includes individuals] for himself. So to live an individualistic lifestyle [apart from the people of God] is to be in grave sin. Church and community lead me to make decisions with regard to the people of God, to give up my life for the sake of his people, to serve them when a need arises, to walk in my gifts before them for their edification, and to rearrange my life for their convenience. I am Jesus’ servant and he told me to love his bride.
You have already heard the first three years of my Christan life above, so I’ll continue where that left off. The home church stopped, everyone went to the places they attended on Sunday mornings during the life of the house church. I got heavily entrenched in the Christian bubble doing mostly administrative stuff and very little relational stuff. At the same time, after being at that church for seven years, the elders agreed that God had indeed called me to pastor for the rest of my life and they very informally assessed me, layed hands on me, and anointed me to the work of pastor which took about a year long process; in particular, to serve as an assistant to the senior pastor. I say assessed informally because it was basically living life before them for seven years that made them decide to affirm me as pastor. I did not have to read books or fill out paperwork or write doctrinal essays, which would have been far more formal.
After about a year and half after becoming an elder and pastor, I left that church. There were no hard feelings, but I had been feeling like leaving for around four years, but stayed and served out of a desire to do nothing in haste and got affirmed as pastor. The past two years I went to another church, but God began a great work of sanctification in my life which caused me to question what a biblical church is. I realized that church was much more than I had ever imagined and much less than I was presently experiencing. In fact, I feel now that for the last two years I have not been committed to the local church, which I never would have imagined would happen to me and that I do regret. There have been many negative effects from not being committed to a local church over the last few years all the while thinking that I was.
I tried to plant a church after a year and a half of being at that new church, but it flopped because no one would join that mission. Then, I was about to leave that church to help another guy plant a church that he had started three years earlier, only to find that he had thrown in the towel. This left me in a hard place because I knew my life was so radically changing and I could not stay where I was; I would dry up spiritually because the structure was faulty and did not allow for community and mission on a large scale.
At this point, I decided to plant a church. Wonder of wonders, people stuck around. People loved the idea. People loved the Gospel and longed for its daily application into life. People longed for community, much more than traditional evangelicalism allows for. And people wanted real mission, far more than traditional evangelicalism allows for.
This whole process has made me take a very close look at the Scriptures to see what God says about elders, pastoring, assessment, being sent out, the nature of church and more. Above are my discoveries. The sum total is that God cannot be put into a box and most of our present day formulas do not fit in line with the Bible nor history. Once someone finds thee formula that they’ll die by, there are ten other scriptural examples to contradict that one. Be biblical for sure, but forsake being extra biblical.
We started with no building, no money, and not being sent out from a local congregation to plant; though I had been sent out as a pastor and elder. We believe the Gospel, are a spiritual family, and are on mission; and that is success. If we know Jesus, love his bride and seek to bring others into the kingdom of God, this is success. People may accuse that it’s too simple, but when you read the New Testament, you find the exact same goal in the early church. They wanted to know Jesus and him crucified; they wanted to be a true spiritual family and community. And they wanted the mission of God to go forth to the nations. Oftentimes, in our very churches these three simple successes are missing for extra biblical misnomers. Well, at this point I am belaboring my point. I hope this is a benefit to you. Thanks for reading.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Doctrine Of "Being Sent Out" Part 4
The Kingdom Expands In Several Ways
How does the kingdom expand if it is not only through the sending out from the local church? Chester and Timmis say,
• The kingdom grows through laborers sent out by God, not man [although God can and does sometimes use man to “confirm” a man being sent. "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest" [Matthew 9:37-38]. Church starts, or is planted, when God saves. We can go out to sow seed and be apart of an existing church, but God has to save new souls. So we can send a group of highly trained individuals as a team to a new area who are of elder quality, but unless God saves, all you have is a group of highly trained individuals as a team sent to a new area who are of elder quality. In fact, nowhere in the NT is a group of trained elders sent to an area to plant a church, but that is the language we use today in the church to describe sending people out to church plant. A grave misnomer indeed. It’s not wrong to go this route, but it surely is not the only way or the best way.
• A plurality of elders, a local church, or single apostles/leaders have been known to send people out on mission in addition to God sending them out of his own accord. All the above NT scriptures contain examples of being sent out.
• People may leave the local church of their own accord as we see in the example of persecution in Jerusalem but should take into consideration their community’s well-being and desires as well. This would not be the route I recommend, but there is surely nothing sinful across the board with this method.
• It is possible to have a church with no elders for a season as in the case of the churches surrounding Crete. Also, in Acts 14, after the two apostles, Paul and Barnabas, preached the Gospel in Derbe, they returned to several cities appointing elders in all the existing churches. Time had elapsed in these churches and there were no elders. Surely this is not the ideal because a church needs to be governed by a plurality of elders. They have gifts that should be used for the edification of the church. Why did Paul not appoint elders immediately as people were harvested? Because he understood church can function without all its ducks in a row for a time. He trusted the Grower. Roland Allen's and Neil Cole's words come to mind here.
• When people are sent out, they normally do not pick where they want to go for the sake of the Gospel. They are told where to go, usually from an apostle or God himself. The very people who stick firmly to particular models of being sent out are usually the same ones who are seeking to go where they want to serve the Lord.
We definitely need to begin defining church biblically. There are a lot of small groups, bible studies, missional communities, home groups, parachurches, college ministries, etc. that function just like a biblical church, but we refuse to call it that for many bad reasons. Then there are "large churches" that are not even close to functioning as a biblical church, but we still call it church. We've muddied the waters and most don't even know what biblical church is.
The main point here is we cannot be dogmatic about a particular model of sending people out. There is nothing prescriptive. In fact, all the above Scriptures were never to be taken as the "only" model and if one supposes they were, they fail to realize that most of them directly contradict the other. For example, Paul's command to Titus to appoint elders at several different churches by himself [and he probably did not know all those churches relationally] is a far different cry from Paul's reference to Timothy being raised up from a plurality of elders in Ephesus from one local church. Also, the new converts in Samaria were ministered too by two apostles sent out of Jerusalem for an unknown period of time and the new converts in Antioch were ministered to by one apostle sent out of Jerusalem for a period of time until he left to find Paul in another city to help him out; no plurality of leadership in the latter. Moreover, in Acts 14:23 apostles appointed elders in multiple churches, in Ephesus the elders of the local church appointed Timothy as another elder [1 Timothy 4:14]; two quite different ways to raise elders up. In Acts 13 God himself spoke to the church to send out two of their own while in other cases church leaders sent two of their own out [see chapter fifteen with Judas and Silas; the point is in one scenario God sent two out, Paul and Barnabas; in another, the local church sent out two, Judas and Silas.] In Antioch and Samaria, the church started apart from any official elders being sent out to start it from another local congregation and this directly contradicts the way most churches are started today. Who’s right and wrong? In a lot of cases, probably no one, but everyone freaks out [i.e. judges and condemns his brother] when it is not done their way.
On the subject of what constitutes a church and what does not, Grudem has a great chapter in Systematic Theology, The Purity and Unity of the Church, where he deals with true churches and false churches. He draws one line and on one side is the true and the other the false. All churches fall on this line somewhere as more pure or less pure. But it is still a church. The churches in Crete had some undone work that Titus needed to place in order and elders needed to be appointed so they might have fallen on the line on the less pure side, but a church nonetheless. In order to become more and more pure, we need to start getting our "ducks in a row." This takes time.
Perhaps, this feels like a lot of words that are not saying much. I feel the same way. I have spent hours and hours of study seeking a biblical prescription/model to follow on what it means to be sent out from a local church. It's speculative at best, dangerous to be dogmatic at worst. All the "models" we have "contradict" one another and go figure, that's why we have so much sharp disagreement today over which church government model is "right." But God left things this way because he would not be put into a box. Many ways of sending, planting, and governing exist within the Body. What is clear is what needs to be clear, what the church is [a body of believers], how it is formed [God grows and gives faith] and what it's supposed to be doing [bringing in the harvest of who God's calling into the kingdom].
How does the kingdom expand if it is not only through the sending out from the local church? Chester and Timmis say,
“…church is at the heart of the New Testament view of mission and mission is at the heart of the New Testament view of church.”And they go on,
“…church planting takes place apart from an existing local congregation and those in which one congregation gives birth to another. This categorization broadly equates to the two models found in the New Testament.”I want to highlight a couple points from the Scriptures and these are vague at best and on purpose:
• The kingdom grows through laborers sent out by God, not man [although God can and does sometimes use man to “confirm” a man being sent. "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest" [Matthew 9:37-38]. Church starts, or is planted, when God saves. We can go out to sow seed and be apart of an existing church, but God has to save new souls. So we can send a group of highly trained individuals as a team to a new area who are of elder quality, but unless God saves, all you have is a group of highly trained individuals as a team sent to a new area who are of elder quality. In fact, nowhere in the NT is a group of trained elders sent to an area to plant a church, but that is the language we use today in the church to describe sending people out to church plant. A grave misnomer indeed. It’s not wrong to go this route, but it surely is not the only way or the best way.
• A plurality of elders, a local church, or single apostles/leaders have been known to send people out on mission in addition to God sending them out of his own accord. All the above NT scriptures contain examples of being sent out.
• People may leave the local church of their own accord as we see in the example of persecution in Jerusalem but should take into consideration their community’s well-being and desires as well. This would not be the route I recommend, but there is surely nothing sinful across the board with this method.
• It is possible to have a church with no elders for a season as in the case of the churches surrounding Crete. Also, in Acts 14, after the two apostles, Paul and Barnabas, preached the Gospel in Derbe, they returned to several cities appointing elders in all the existing churches. Time had elapsed in these churches and there were no elders. Surely this is not the ideal because a church needs to be governed by a plurality of elders. They have gifts that should be used for the edification of the church. Why did Paul not appoint elders immediately as people were harvested? Because he understood church can function without all its ducks in a row for a time. He trusted the Grower. Roland Allen's and Neil Cole's words come to mind here.
• When people are sent out, they normally do not pick where they want to go for the sake of the Gospel. They are told where to go, usually from an apostle or God himself. The very people who stick firmly to particular models of being sent out are usually the same ones who are seeking to go where they want to serve the Lord.
We definitely need to begin defining church biblically. There are a lot of small groups, bible studies, missional communities, home groups, parachurches, college ministries, etc. that function just like a biblical church, but we refuse to call it that for many bad reasons. Then there are "large churches" that are not even close to functioning as a biblical church, but we still call it church. We've muddied the waters and most don't even know what biblical church is.
The main point here is we cannot be dogmatic about a particular model of sending people out. There is nothing prescriptive. In fact, all the above Scriptures were never to be taken as the "only" model and if one supposes they were, they fail to realize that most of them directly contradict the other. For example, Paul's command to Titus to appoint elders at several different churches by himself [and he probably did not know all those churches relationally] is a far different cry from Paul's reference to Timothy being raised up from a plurality of elders in Ephesus from one local church. Also, the new converts in Samaria were ministered too by two apostles sent out of Jerusalem for an unknown period of time and the new converts in Antioch were ministered to by one apostle sent out of Jerusalem for a period of time until he left to find Paul in another city to help him out; no plurality of leadership in the latter. Moreover, in Acts 14:23 apostles appointed elders in multiple churches, in Ephesus the elders of the local church appointed Timothy as another elder [1 Timothy 4:14]; two quite different ways to raise elders up. In Acts 13 God himself spoke to the church to send out two of their own while in other cases church leaders sent two of their own out [see chapter fifteen with Judas and Silas; the point is in one scenario God sent two out, Paul and Barnabas; in another, the local church sent out two, Judas and Silas.] In Antioch and Samaria, the church started apart from any official elders being sent out to start it from another local congregation and this directly contradicts the way most churches are started today. Who’s right and wrong? In a lot of cases, probably no one, but everyone freaks out [i.e. judges and condemns his brother] when it is not done their way.
On the subject of what constitutes a church and what does not, Grudem has a great chapter in Systematic Theology, The Purity and Unity of the Church, where he deals with true churches and false churches. He draws one line and on one side is the true and the other the false. All churches fall on this line somewhere as more pure or less pure. But it is still a church. The churches in Crete had some undone work that Titus needed to place in order and elders needed to be appointed so they might have fallen on the line on the less pure side, but a church nonetheless. In order to become more and more pure, we need to start getting our "ducks in a row." This takes time.
Perhaps, this feels like a lot of words that are not saying much. I feel the same way. I have spent hours and hours of study seeking a biblical prescription/model to follow on what it means to be sent out from a local church. It's speculative at best, dangerous to be dogmatic at worst. All the "models" we have "contradict" one another and go figure, that's why we have so much sharp disagreement today over which church government model is "right." But God left things this way because he would not be put into a box. Many ways of sending, planting, and governing exist within the Body. What is clear is what needs to be clear, what the church is [a body of believers], how it is formed [God grows and gives faith] and what it's supposed to be doing [bringing in the harvest of who God's calling into the kingdom].
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The Doctrine Of "Being Sent Out" Part 3
Testimonies Of Laborers "Going"
Now I want to take a minute to discuss real life scenarios so we can see how the subject of a particular model for being sent out from a local church is not as clear as we attempt to make it just like we saw the Scriptures declare in similar fashion. First, I have a friend who has longed to go overseas to take Jesus to the nations for probably the last ten years. Of God's own stirring in his heart he has come to this conclusion. No local church made that decision for him. This is kind of like Philip when God sent him out as a lone-ranger to Gaza without the support of any local church. My friend sought out his training within a Bible institute and has visited his final destination several times. There is not a local church sending him out as of the last ten years or preparing to go, whether that be right or wrong. In fact, he does not have any particular local church picked out as of yet overseas, but is committed to life overseas for the sake of the harvest and God's kingdom. But, he will find a local church and submit to their authority upon arrival, if not before. Is he wrong? Is it unbiblical? Should he have gone through the local church training of some church before leaving? Does Scripture really teach that?
Another friend who pastored up in a northern state as an assistant for nearly a decade, decided one day to leave after much prayer and theological conviction. He uprooted his family and moved down south without the "sending" of his local church and not to be apart of any particular church though he began looking for a community of believers once he moved. Is he wrong? Should he have waited to be sent out? Does Scripture really teach that?
Wide-spread persecution plagued the early Christians in Jerusalem in the first century. They left town immediately. They went everywhere and anywhere. They were not sent out. They did not consult any local church. Should they have stayed and died if necessary only to not be accused of leaving the leadership of the apostolic church in Jerusalem? Should they have received a two-year training on the dangers of falling away or how to stand strong under the weight persecution from the very apostles themselves? Does Scripture really teach that? Clearly in this instance, man did not have his hands in the churches business, God did. And God said, “Go!” [through the persecution]. O may we be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Perhaps that would destroy our models, assessments, and structures so the church would be sent out. I would love to talk with the creators of these assessments about this very issue of persecution.
Or what about the countless numbers of those who leave local churches to fellowship with another part of the body over doctrinal differences, or church practice differences or sin issues within the leadership that perhaps may not be being dealt with? Even the proponents of being sent out from a local church have been the biggest perpetrators of leaving their local churches before being sent out. In fact, one pastor I know who is adamant about being sent out from a local church suggested I leave his church without being sent out by the elders to join another church who’s elders planted their church without being sent out so that eventually I could get sent out from that church. Does Scripture really teach that?
Or what about one very dear to all of us, one who actually left the present local church of his day over a doctrinal disagreement and started what we know as The Reformation? This local church called him to recant his teachings and excommunicated him from the church when he did not. He might have even been accused of sheep stealing. Should he have "just stuck it out" and hoped for the best? Should he have not been counted in the number with the rebels? Should he have preserved that good name by which he was originally called? Does Scripture really teach that?
Time would fail to continue on this track of examples of history who did not fit the present-day status quo of those who believe in the necessity of a particular model of "being sent out" from the local church. The reasons are innumerable, but not always sinful. Yes, people don't understand authority or community and that's probably the biggest reason people leave a local church for another; that's why "church shopping/hopping" is big business right now. I admit that! Also, there's the excuse to leave over which church has the "best thing going" at the present time. Who has the largest church or most amount of ministries? Who has the best children's ministry or youth program? All of these and more fill the reasons why people are not being sent out of local churches before leaving. But I think the Scriptures allow for the expansion of the kingdom of God through the sowing of seeds. I think it expands through souls being saved; God doing a new work and new leaders are being raised up even apart from the local church in the area. Recalling the former days as a new Christian, the group of a dozen people that God saved were not connected in relationship together before becoming a Christian and were not saved by the effort of any particular church. We were ministered to by individuals or a small group of believers, believed in Christ, and then God sovereignly brought us all together to be the church; very unconventional indeed. Not one church formed us!! Should it have been a local church who had brought in that harvest in the late 90’s? Should we have been plugged into a local church instead of meeting as a new church plant? I think the answer to both questions is, “No.”
Now I want to take a minute to discuss real life scenarios so we can see how the subject of a particular model for being sent out from a local church is not as clear as we attempt to make it just like we saw the Scriptures declare in similar fashion. First, I have a friend who has longed to go overseas to take Jesus to the nations for probably the last ten years. Of God's own stirring in his heart he has come to this conclusion. No local church made that decision for him. This is kind of like Philip when God sent him out as a lone-ranger to Gaza without the support of any local church. My friend sought out his training within a Bible institute and has visited his final destination several times. There is not a local church sending him out as of the last ten years or preparing to go, whether that be right or wrong. In fact, he does not have any particular local church picked out as of yet overseas, but is committed to life overseas for the sake of the harvest and God's kingdom. But, he will find a local church and submit to their authority upon arrival, if not before. Is he wrong? Is it unbiblical? Should he have gone through the local church training of some church before leaving? Does Scripture really teach that?
Another friend who pastored up in a northern state as an assistant for nearly a decade, decided one day to leave after much prayer and theological conviction. He uprooted his family and moved down south without the "sending" of his local church and not to be apart of any particular church though he began looking for a community of believers once he moved. Is he wrong? Should he have waited to be sent out? Does Scripture really teach that?
Wide-spread persecution plagued the early Christians in Jerusalem in the first century. They left town immediately. They went everywhere and anywhere. They were not sent out. They did not consult any local church. Should they have stayed and died if necessary only to not be accused of leaving the leadership of the apostolic church in Jerusalem? Should they have received a two-year training on the dangers of falling away or how to stand strong under the weight persecution from the very apostles themselves? Does Scripture really teach that? Clearly in this instance, man did not have his hands in the churches business, God did. And God said, “Go!” [through the persecution]. O may we be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Perhaps that would destroy our models, assessments, and structures so the church would be sent out. I would love to talk with the creators of these assessments about this very issue of persecution.
Or what about the countless numbers of those who leave local churches to fellowship with another part of the body over doctrinal differences, or church practice differences or sin issues within the leadership that perhaps may not be being dealt with? Even the proponents of being sent out from a local church have been the biggest perpetrators of leaving their local churches before being sent out. In fact, one pastor I know who is adamant about being sent out from a local church suggested I leave his church without being sent out by the elders to join another church who’s elders planted their church without being sent out so that eventually I could get sent out from that church. Does Scripture really teach that?
Or what about one very dear to all of us, one who actually left the present local church of his day over a doctrinal disagreement and started what we know as The Reformation? This local church called him to recant his teachings and excommunicated him from the church when he did not. He might have even been accused of sheep stealing. Should he have "just stuck it out" and hoped for the best? Should he have not been counted in the number with the rebels? Should he have preserved that good name by which he was originally called? Does Scripture really teach that?
Time would fail to continue on this track of examples of history who did not fit the present-day status quo of those who believe in the necessity of a particular model of "being sent out" from the local church. The reasons are innumerable, but not always sinful. Yes, people don't understand authority or community and that's probably the biggest reason people leave a local church for another; that's why "church shopping/hopping" is big business right now. I admit that! Also, there's the excuse to leave over which church has the "best thing going" at the present time. Who has the largest church or most amount of ministries? Who has the best children's ministry or youth program? All of these and more fill the reasons why people are not being sent out of local churches before leaving. But I think the Scriptures allow for the expansion of the kingdom of God through the sowing of seeds. I think it expands through souls being saved; God doing a new work and new leaders are being raised up even apart from the local church in the area. Recalling the former days as a new Christian, the group of a dozen people that God saved were not connected in relationship together before becoming a Christian and were not saved by the effort of any particular church. We were ministered to by individuals or a small group of believers, believed in Christ, and then God sovereignly brought us all together to be the church; very unconventional indeed. Not one church formed us!! Should it have been a local church who had brought in that harvest in the late 90’s? Should we have been plugged into a local church instead of meeting as a new church plant? I think the answer to both questions is, “No.”
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Doctrine Of "Being Sent Out" Part 2
What Is A Church And How Is It Formed?
A helpful question to ask ourselves is when exactly is a church planted. Most of us know some things we can begin to set in order [like Titus] after a church has sprung up, but I am afraid a lot of people do not understand what a church is or how it is formed. Jesus is helpful in this regard because he talks much about the kingdom of God. We'll get to that in a moment though. Some helpful questions to ask ourselves as we dive into what a church is are the following: "Are Apostles the only ones who plant churches? Do pastors plant churches? What about evangelists like Philip and their roles they play? Are they sent by God or man or both? Can a man even plant a church or is it God who plants all churches? Is it a team of people that must plant or a single man? What are the requirements, if any, that constitute a church being a church? Can a missionary plant a church? Can his family plant? Can a church be planted from people who are not sent out from another existing body? Can someone move to the "mission field" apart from the sending of a local church? Can we go out seeking to be sent out or should we just be sent out from where we presently are? Do we pick where we get to be sent out or does the church leadership choose? What does the Bible say about these topics? Once again, the ultimate question is what is a church and how is it formed? For this answer we shall turn to our Lord as he spoke of the kingdom of God.
I want to side step real quick here and share a personal testimony about my early days as a Christian and my experience with church. A group of around a dozen or more became friends after God saved us and sovereignly brought us together. We began living life together. We were always together. We ate together, prayed together, sang, studied, counseled, ministered together, lived on mission before the world together, met in homes, had a mid forties married couple overseeing us and much more. This was by far the closest experience I've had in regards to church. It began/sprang up organically when God stepped up and saved a dozen or so souls and thrust us right back into the harvest. Now we all had different “churches” we attended on Sundays, but that was more of a time filler on Sunday mornings than actual church for us. We, as a church, were not perfect, [and in fact, there were several problems] but nothing too great we could not work through. As we get into Jesus' words about his church I have found those few early years the closest thing to the biblical church. In other words, we already had a church that God grew, but because of our lack of understanding of what church is it dissipated and we all attended different services on Sunday mornings in different buildings until the present. I would also say that God started and grew this church because the other churches in the area would never call such a ragtag group of people a church or church planters. Anyways, back to Jesus.
In Matthew 13:1-23 Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God with a parable about a sower, his seed, and the soil he sows in. Jesus says this is the foundational parable, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?" Mark 4:13. The disciples asked, "Why do you relate the kingdom of God to people in parables?" Jesus answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." God wants us to clearly understand how the kingdom of God starts and spreads. Three things we need to plant the kingdom naturally, a good sower, good seed, and good soil. In other words, we need God's child, God's Word, and God to cause the growth in soil, or people's hearts. So the kingdom of God grows very organically. Nothing is said about professionals, methods, or demographics. Paul further explained the kingdom of God when he said, "One sows, another reaps, but God [!] causes the growth. Sounds like God is the planter of the kingdom. God starts the kingdom of God in a heart. This kingdom now rules and reigns in the heart of man, bringing him into subjection under the great King Jesus.
In Mark 4:26-29 Jesus tells another parable about the kingdom of God ruling in the hearts of men. A man sows more seed. The seed grows, but the man has no clue how. It grows without the help of man, first the blade, then the ear, and then the full grain. Should we not marvel that once again God causes the growth and we don't even know how. We go into all the world preaching the Gospel [planting seeds] and God bears fruit. Neil Cole points out two things,
By the second and third generation, the church was a wreak [see Revelation 2 and 3.] Paul had been dead less than thirty years. And we act like, though we would never say it, that our methods, assessments, and professionals are going to prevent the great falling away from the faith that occurred in the latter part of the first century. We have “great” church planting methods and methods on how people should be sent out into the harvest and God chuckles in heaven because he knows the truth about the situation, namely that he is the Grower of the kingdom and the Sender into the harvest. We say we know that and our methods prove otherwise because we are all too sure of ourselves and methods. How can such a firm stance be taken on one particular model of sending out all in the hopes of guaranteeing success?
Roland Allen in his great book, Missionary Methods: St. Paul's Or Ours? said,
I have found second and third generation Christians following in the footsteps of their leaders who created massive structures, systems, leadership development and training centers. As time goes on, we elaborate these systems even more into how to grow Christians and send them out instead of praying to the Lord of the harvest for laborers. We get trained for years to go into the harvest and spend little or no time praying about the laborers or the harvest. The laborers come from the harvest. The one sent out is the one who just got plucked out so in return God may send him back out into the harvest to pluck more. It's funny, God says pray and sow, we say how are we going to train leaders so well so that we can send them out with the slightest chance of falling away or jacking it up as possible. I just heard a testimony of a family who had been trained for years to go overseas until the husband committed adultery and embezzled money. Now they have moved back to the States. Sin will occur. I believe the answer is send more people, but many would promote more training and programs to prevent these types of sin. Our systems cannot save ourselves from ourselves, only God can.
A helpful question to ask ourselves is when exactly is a church planted. Most of us know some things we can begin to set in order [like Titus] after a church has sprung up, but I am afraid a lot of people do not understand what a church is or how it is formed. Jesus is helpful in this regard because he talks much about the kingdom of God. We'll get to that in a moment though. Some helpful questions to ask ourselves as we dive into what a church is are the following: "Are Apostles the only ones who plant churches? Do pastors plant churches? What about evangelists like Philip and their roles they play? Are they sent by God or man or both? Can a man even plant a church or is it God who plants all churches? Is it a team of people that must plant or a single man? What are the requirements, if any, that constitute a church being a church? Can a missionary plant a church? Can his family plant? Can a church be planted from people who are not sent out from another existing body? Can someone move to the "mission field" apart from the sending of a local church? Can we go out seeking to be sent out or should we just be sent out from where we presently are? Do we pick where we get to be sent out or does the church leadership choose? What does the Bible say about these topics? Once again, the ultimate question is what is a church and how is it formed? For this answer we shall turn to our Lord as he spoke of the kingdom of God.
I want to side step real quick here and share a personal testimony about my early days as a Christian and my experience with church. A group of around a dozen or more became friends after God saved us and sovereignly brought us together. We began living life together. We were always together. We ate together, prayed together, sang, studied, counseled, ministered together, lived on mission before the world together, met in homes, had a mid forties married couple overseeing us and much more. This was by far the closest experience I've had in regards to church. It began/sprang up organically when God stepped up and saved a dozen or so souls and thrust us right back into the harvest. Now we all had different “churches” we attended on Sundays, but that was more of a time filler on Sunday mornings than actual church for us. We, as a church, were not perfect, [and in fact, there were several problems] but nothing too great we could not work through. As we get into Jesus' words about his church I have found those few early years the closest thing to the biblical church. In other words, we already had a church that God grew, but because of our lack of understanding of what church is it dissipated and we all attended different services on Sunday mornings in different buildings until the present. I would also say that God started and grew this church because the other churches in the area would never call such a ragtag group of people a church or church planters. Anyways, back to Jesus.
In Matthew 13:1-23 Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God with a parable about a sower, his seed, and the soil he sows in. Jesus says this is the foundational parable, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?" Mark 4:13. The disciples asked, "Why do you relate the kingdom of God to people in parables?" Jesus answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." God wants us to clearly understand how the kingdom of God starts and spreads. Three things we need to plant the kingdom naturally, a good sower, good seed, and good soil. In other words, we need God's child, God's Word, and God to cause the growth in soil, or people's hearts. So the kingdom of God grows very organically. Nothing is said about professionals, methods, or demographics. Paul further explained the kingdom of God when he said, "One sows, another reaps, but God [!] causes the growth. Sounds like God is the planter of the kingdom. God starts the kingdom of God in a heart. This kingdom now rules and reigns in the heart of man, bringing him into subjection under the great King Jesus.
In Mark 4:26-29 Jesus tells another parable about the kingdom of God ruling in the hearts of men. A man sows more seed. The seed grows, but the man has no clue how. It grows without the help of man, first the blade, then the ear, and then the full grain. Should we not marvel that once again God causes the growth and we don't even know how. We go into all the world preaching the Gospel [planting seeds] and God bears fruit. Neil Cole points out two things,
"First, we are all qualified to do the work, and the work is not really so hard. Second, we frequently expend our energy and resources in the wrong phase of ministry life...Innumerable churches in the West spend most of their effort and money on the growing phase of life. Little is spent on breaking up soil, planting seeds, or harvesting crops."This is incredibly insightful. No doubt God wants the kingdom of God to expand and we attempt to professionalize sowing seed or worse yet, professionalize growing. Think of all the training. Think of the years invested. We need laborers in the fields and we keep them in the classroom. If we truly believe God causes the growth, I think we'd start expending our energy and resources in the fields. We feel like there is not a good return on our money because of all the bad soil and "lack of fruit." So we change our methods or our sowers. But God causes the growth. Cole continues,
"I am confident that if churches invested more time, energy, and money in planting seeds, they would not have to work hard at growing, and the harvest would be much more abundant. All of us who are invested in the Kingdom of God long deeply to be a part of a spontaneously growing and multiplying movement where God is at work...How can we ever hope to see a spontaneous church multiplication movement if we don't have any space for spontaneity? There is a risk involved in seeking a spontaneous movement. We must trust God to do His part. We must be willing to place ourselves in a position where, if He does not show up, we will be seen as complete fools. Most have not been willing to take that risk."There is that famous verse that most know, but few believe in practice, when Jesus declared he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. How was Paul able to preach in all the places he did, in the time frame he did, see souls brought into the kingdom from the harvest, see God plant churches, and make disciples of the nations? Spontaneity and trusting the Grower.
By the second and third generation, the church was a wreak [see Revelation 2 and 3.] Paul had been dead less than thirty years. And we act like, though we would never say it, that our methods, assessments, and professionals are going to prevent the great falling away from the faith that occurred in the latter part of the first century. We have “great” church planting methods and methods on how people should be sent out into the harvest and God chuckles in heaven because he knows the truth about the situation, namely that he is the Grower of the kingdom and the Sender into the harvest. We say we know that and our methods prove otherwise because we are all too sure of ourselves and methods. How can such a firm stance be taken on one particular model of sending out all in the hopes of guaranteeing success?
Roland Allen in his great book, Missionary Methods: St. Paul's Or Ours? said,
“We are accustomed by long usage to an elaborate system of church organization, and a peculiar code of morality. We cannot imagine any Christianity worthy of the name existing without the elaborate machinery which we have invented. We naturally expect our converts to adopt from us not only essentials but accidentals. We desire to impart not only the Gospel, but the Law and the Customs. With that spirit, St. Paul's methods do not agree, because they were the natural outcome of quite another spirit, the spirit which preferred persuasion to authority. St. Paul distrusted elaborate systems of religious ceremonial, and grasped fundamental principles with an unhesitating faith in the power of the Holy Ghost to apply them to his hearers and to work out their appropriate external expressions in them. It was inevitable that methods which were the natural outcome of the mind of St. Paul should appear as dangerous to us as they appeared to the Jewish Christians of his own day."
I have found second and third generation Christians following in the footsteps of their leaders who created massive structures, systems, leadership development and training centers. As time goes on, we elaborate these systems even more into how to grow Christians and send them out instead of praying to the Lord of the harvest for laborers. We get trained for years to go into the harvest and spend little or no time praying about the laborers or the harvest. The laborers come from the harvest. The one sent out is the one who just got plucked out so in return God may send him back out into the harvest to pluck more. It's funny, God says pray and sow, we say how are we going to train leaders so well so that we can send them out with the slightest chance of falling away or jacking it up as possible. I just heard a testimony of a family who had been trained for years to go overseas until the husband committed adultery and embezzled money. Now they have moved back to the States. Sin will occur. I believe the answer is send more people, but many would promote more training and programs to prevent these types of sin. Our systems cannot save ourselves from ourselves, only God can.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Doctrine Of "Being Sent Out" Part 1
The topic of "being sent out" for Gospel work, community and mission has been a hot topic lately. As I have searched out biblical teachings on the subject, I have found little help. So I decided to go to the Bible first, then Calvin, Luther, Henry, Grudem, Cole, Allen, Chester, Timmis and below are my discoveries. [In addition to dealing with being sent out from local churches, I also deal with the formation and nature of church.]
The Bible On "Being Sent"
Here is a list of examples of "being sent" and who is doing the sending that I have found in the NT. In Matthew 10:5 Jesus sent out twelve disciples to preach to Israel alone. In Matthew 10:40, anyone who receives the disciples message of the kingdom receives Jesus who sent the twelve. In 15:24 Jesus said he was sent from his Father to Israel. In 23:37 Jesus laments Jerusalem because they rejected the children of God who were sent by God to preach to them about the things of God. In Luke 4:18 Jesus proclaims about himself that he was sent by God to preach. In 4:26 Jesus mentions when Elijah was sent by God to only one widow to provide her needs. In 4:43 Jesus said he was sent to preach about the kingdom. In 10:1 Jesus sent seventy-two disciples two by two, out to preach. In 10:16, we find that to reject Jesus is to actually reject the one who sent him. In John 3:34, we find that God sent Jesus. In 4:38, the disciples reaped a harvest of people for the kingdom out of Samaria where others had previously sown God's Word. In 5:30 Jesus sought the will of the one who sent him - God. In 6:29 God commands people to believe in the one he has sent - Jesus.
There are many more instances in the Gospels where "being sent" is being talked about, but we understand the gist of it from the above examples. There is nothing prescriptive so far concerning "being sent" for long term missions, pastoring, or about church life, church planting, or church leadership.
Now moving on to Acts, in 8:14 we find a revival sprung out in Samaria as Philip the evangelist preached; many were brought into the kingdom of God; a church had been started. Upon hearing this, the apostles in Jerusalem sent two other Apostles, Peter and John, to further minister to the new saints there. They taught there for an indefinite period of time and left. End of story as we know it. Did they raise up any leaders before they left? Did they appoint elders? How would this new church survive? Unfortunately so little information has been given to what actually happened. It's hard to draw any strong dogmatic conclusions concerning church practice, planting, and leadership from this story. In fact, after this God called Philip to leave as well with no further mention concerning the "church" there or their leaders. So let's move on.
In 11:19-27, the persecuted Christians who had left Jerusalem of their own accord had gone everywhere preaching Jesus. In Antioch, a church had been started because many believed the preaching of Jesus. So the church in Jerusalem sent one man to minister to them, Barnabas; a direct contradiction to those who propose a minimum of two must be sent for Gospel work; though I personally would always recommend a minimum of two. He was there indefinitely, then left to find Paul in another city [so there was no leadership as far as we know for a period of time], and returned with Paul to serve there a year ministering to the saints. We also find at this point that some prophets from Jerusalem joined Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, but we don't know if these prophets were sent or not. We can only make assumptions at best.
In 13:1-4, the church leaders in Antioch prayed and fasted and the Holy Spirit spoke to them to send out Paul and Barnabas for a particular work that we are not told about. We can gather from further texts in Acts that this work was preaching Jesus, equipping saints, planting churches, and at times raising up elders in churches as a team for an indefinite period of time. But God was the one who spoke and sent them out. The church merely agreed that God had indeed spoken and was sending them out [13:4]. One may ask, “If the Holy Spirit was the one sending them alone, why didn’t He speak directly to Barnabus and Saul?” He did; he spoke to them all and Barnabas and Paul are included in all. “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." In addition, Luke records in verse one that this was a church. Where did it come from? Who set it up? An average intellect would know that just a few chapters earlier [Acts 11:19] the Christians who left Jerusalem because of persecution fled everywhere so it’s quite possible or rather highly likely that this church was started by some Christians who landed in Antioch. Regardless, a church started apart from being sent out from the apostles in Jerusalem. BUT, the fruit of the apostles was definitely evident in the church in Antioch and for this we can be thankful. Much fruit is borne in the lives of God’s people from one another and this fruit lasts on into new seasons of our lives.
In chapter fifteen, Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch from their journey of preaching Jesus to the nations and are then sent by their church to Jerusalem to deal with a doctrinal issue. So they dealt with the issue accordingly and then the Jerusalem church sent them back, but with two others, leaders Judas and Silas. In 15:33 there seems to be some discrepancy as to who exactly was sent out, but we know for sure that the church sent out Judas back to Jerusalem. In 15:35-41, we have a very interesting transaction occur. Paul tells Barnabas, apart from the counsel and authority of church leadership [as far as we know], he wanted to return to all the cities that God had previously just sent them by the Holy Spirit's command and the churches blessing. Barnabas thought it was a good idea, again apart from the churches counsel, but wanted to take John Mark with them, but Paul completely disagreed. So they separated from one another, Paul taking Silas and Barnabas taking Mark. But, another very interesting detail was the churches position on the matter. They sided with Paul, prayed for him, commended him to the grace of God and by all appearances, seem to admit Barnabas as having departed from the apostolic team of evangelists, although two teams for the Gospel’s sake had been formed. Also, we don't find Barnabas recorded as a teacher anymore in the church at Antioch. Calvin and Henry agree upon the churches favor of Paul and dissatisfaction with Barnabas. This is the first instance [in regards to being sent out] so far of a churches authority being disagreed with. What happened to Barnabas and Mark? Were they excommunicated, or shunned, or not used for the furtherance of the kingdom anymore? Barnabas is seen again later serving with Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:6 and Mark is mentioned in Colossians 4:10 where he is told to be welcomed in love from the Colossians by the Apostle Paul himself.
In Acts 6:3 the apostles had the congregation [not themselves or elders] pick seven deacons to serve in the local church. In 19:22 Paul sent, of his own accord, two leaders who were his helpers on a journey of Gospel preaching into Macedonia while he stayed in Ephesus. In 1 Corinthians 4:17 Paul said he had sent them only Timothy to teach them the apostles doctrine. In 2 Corinthians 12:17 Paul mentions he had increased the number of those sent and had personally sent several people to help them, one of them being Titus. In Ephesians 6:22 and 2 Timothy 4:12 we see Paul sent Tychicus to see how they were doing. In Colossians 4:8 Paul sent Tychicus and Onesimus to them to pass along some news of Paul's' well-being. In 1 Thessalonians 3:22 Paul sent Timothy alone to teach them until they were established.
In Titus 1:5 Paul told Titus that he was left in Crete to put in order in the church things that were not in order. Paul had worked there, but left some things undone on purpose that Titus might take up the mantle. Also he was told himself to appoint elders in every town in the area. This was his commission from the apostle alone for him to do this by himself; not church leadership or a congregation. In addition, this means that some of the churches went without a plurality of elders or no elders for a period of time; a direct contradiction for those who insist there is no church where there are no elders.
In 1 Timothy 4:14 Paul references Timothy's pastorate that was given by the laying on of hands by the elders of the church. Here we find this gift given by God above [Ephesians 4:11], but administered in this case by a plurality of elders.
In Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in all the churches they had just planted in Asia. The church leaders did not do this work nor the congregation, but the apostles. Note that these “churches” were called churches before the appointment of elders. This is not ideal, but a fact nonetheless.
Acts 11:30, 15:4, 6, 23, 20:17, 1 Timothy 5:17-19; James 5:14, and 1 Peter 5:1 all mention a plurality of elders governing churches, but don't mention anything about how they were appointed or sent. It’s indicative that a plurality of Elders was the norm in 1st century New Testament churches.
In what we commonly call "the great commission," Jesus said the authority to call the shots in this world had been given to him. He said, "Go out preaching, teaching and baptizing." This commission was from Jesus to whom all authority had been given from God above. So we sow, and some of us reap, but God causes the growth. Do we add these to existing churches or start new ones? Yes. Once God saves, a church has been planted. We see this occur over and over and over again in the Book of Acts. Some are naive to believe they must be placed into existing churches. When God grows, the kingdom of God has been believed and new life has sprung forth. Perhaps, some reasons elders of a local church would not plant anew like God has already done in the NT is pride and fear. Pride because they want to build their kingdom and have another notch under their belt under the title, fruitfulness; or pride in that they think some will fall away if they are not "under" their leadership. And fear because they cannot entrust to God what God has already begun to do and that is grow. If God began to grow a soul, let the church take root there in that place with the sower, reaper, and "new creation." If you want to send leaders then great. Do it. If you want to send one, then great. If you want to send two, then great. If you want to send ten, then great! But God forbid we continue to grow our kingdom or that we attempt to put God in a box through a particular method. Let another church form in their own context and with their own gifting. Thus kingdom multiplication will start and will always prevent second and third generation Christians. Perhaps our concern with Jesus' way of building the kingdom is a fear of great apostasy, but our methods have not stopped that yet. Remember the parable of Jesus about the good seed sown by God's people and the weeds sown by the enemy [Matthew 13:24-30]? What did Jesus want us to do about that? Nothing! The servants ask, "Do you want us to go and gather the weeds [the apostate]? But Jesus said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'" We sow and reap and expand, but God causes the growth. Then in the end he will destroy the wicked apostates.
In conclusion to what the Bible speaks about being sent out, we find not one model to follow. There are some things we can affirm though. Churches ideally have a plurality of elders. Churches are autonomous and are not held accountable to another church; there is no hierarchical structure in place. Contrary to popular belief, sometimes one person is the sender for Gospel work and sometimes one person is sent for Gospel work; although I do find it wise to have at least two sending and at least two being sent out. Samaria, Crete, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch all had church leadership issues that would be called into question today by many church governments. Basically, they did not have leadership for a time of their existence as churches and their elder appointments all contradicted the other. Also contrary to popular belief, we find not one example of extensive assessment for Gospel work. Character is proven and ability to teach to tested. Many church assessments are pages and pages long and take years to complete. In Total Church, the authors mention the mystical assumption that many churches have placed on church planters,
The Bible On "Being Sent"
Here is a list of examples of "being sent" and who is doing the sending that I have found in the NT. In Matthew 10:5 Jesus sent out twelve disciples to preach to Israel alone. In Matthew 10:40, anyone who receives the disciples message of the kingdom receives Jesus who sent the twelve. In 15:24 Jesus said he was sent from his Father to Israel. In 23:37 Jesus laments Jerusalem because they rejected the children of God who were sent by God to preach to them about the things of God. In Luke 4:18 Jesus proclaims about himself that he was sent by God to preach. In 4:26 Jesus mentions when Elijah was sent by God to only one widow to provide her needs. In 4:43 Jesus said he was sent to preach about the kingdom. In 10:1 Jesus sent seventy-two disciples two by two, out to preach. In 10:16, we find that to reject Jesus is to actually reject the one who sent him. In John 3:34, we find that God sent Jesus. In 4:38, the disciples reaped a harvest of people for the kingdom out of Samaria where others had previously sown God's Word. In 5:30 Jesus sought the will of the one who sent him - God. In 6:29 God commands people to believe in the one he has sent - Jesus.
There are many more instances in the Gospels where "being sent" is being talked about, but we understand the gist of it from the above examples. There is nothing prescriptive so far concerning "being sent" for long term missions, pastoring, or about church life, church planting, or church leadership.
Now moving on to Acts, in 8:14 we find a revival sprung out in Samaria as Philip the evangelist preached; many were brought into the kingdom of God; a church had been started. Upon hearing this, the apostles in Jerusalem sent two other Apostles, Peter and John, to further minister to the new saints there. They taught there for an indefinite period of time and left. End of story as we know it. Did they raise up any leaders before they left? Did they appoint elders? How would this new church survive? Unfortunately so little information has been given to what actually happened. It's hard to draw any strong dogmatic conclusions concerning church practice, planting, and leadership from this story. In fact, after this God called Philip to leave as well with no further mention concerning the "church" there or their leaders. So let's move on.
In 11:19-27, the persecuted Christians who had left Jerusalem of their own accord had gone everywhere preaching Jesus. In Antioch, a church had been started because many believed the preaching of Jesus. So the church in Jerusalem sent one man to minister to them, Barnabas; a direct contradiction to those who propose a minimum of two must be sent for Gospel work; though I personally would always recommend a minimum of two. He was there indefinitely, then left to find Paul in another city [so there was no leadership as far as we know for a period of time], and returned with Paul to serve there a year ministering to the saints. We also find at this point that some prophets from Jerusalem joined Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, but we don't know if these prophets were sent or not. We can only make assumptions at best.
In 13:1-4, the church leaders in Antioch prayed and fasted and the Holy Spirit spoke to them to send out Paul and Barnabas for a particular work that we are not told about. We can gather from further texts in Acts that this work was preaching Jesus, equipping saints, planting churches, and at times raising up elders in churches as a team for an indefinite period of time. But God was the one who spoke and sent them out. The church merely agreed that God had indeed spoken and was sending them out [13:4]. One may ask, “If the Holy Spirit was the one sending them alone, why didn’t He speak directly to Barnabus and Saul?” He did; he spoke to them all and Barnabas and Paul are included in all. “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." In addition, Luke records in verse one that this was a church. Where did it come from? Who set it up? An average intellect would know that just a few chapters earlier [Acts 11:19] the Christians who left Jerusalem because of persecution fled everywhere so it’s quite possible or rather highly likely that this church was started by some Christians who landed in Antioch. Regardless, a church started apart from being sent out from the apostles in Jerusalem. BUT, the fruit of the apostles was definitely evident in the church in Antioch and for this we can be thankful. Much fruit is borne in the lives of God’s people from one another and this fruit lasts on into new seasons of our lives.
In chapter fifteen, Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch from their journey of preaching Jesus to the nations and are then sent by their church to Jerusalem to deal with a doctrinal issue. So they dealt with the issue accordingly and then the Jerusalem church sent them back, but with two others, leaders Judas and Silas. In 15:33 there seems to be some discrepancy as to who exactly was sent out, but we know for sure that the church sent out Judas back to Jerusalem. In 15:35-41, we have a very interesting transaction occur. Paul tells Barnabas, apart from the counsel and authority of church leadership [as far as we know], he wanted to return to all the cities that God had previously just sent them by the Holy Spirit's command and the churches blessing. Barnabas thought it was a good idea, again apart from the churches counsel, but wanted to take John Mark with them, but Paul completely disagreed. So they separated from one another, Paul taking Silas and Barnabas taking Mark. But, another very interesting detail was the churches position on the matter. They sided with Paul, prayed for him, commended him to the grace of God and by all appearances, seem to admit Barnabas as having departed from the apostolic team of evangelists, although two teams for the Gospel’s sake had been formed. Also, we don't find Barnabas recorded as a teacher anymore in the church at Antioch. Calvin and Henry agree upon the churches favor of Paul and dissatisfaction with Barnabas. This is the first instance [in regards to being sent out] so far of a churches authority being disagreed with. What happened to Barnabas and Mark? Were they excommunicated, or shunned, or not used for the furtherance of the kingdom anymore? Barnabas is seen again later serving with Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:6 and Mark is mentioned in Colossians 4:10 where he is told to be welcomed in love from the Colossians by the Apostle Paul himself.
In Acts 6:3 the apostles had the congregation [not themselves or elders] pick seven deacons to serve in the local church. In 19:22 Paul sent, of his own accord, two leaders who were his helpers on a journey of Gospel preaching into Macedonia while he stayed in Ephesus. In 1 Corinthians 4:17 Paul said he had sent them only Timothy to teach them the apostles doctrine. In 2 Corinthians 12:17 Paul mentions he had increased the number of those sent and had personally sent several people to help them, one of them being Titus. In Ephesians 6:22 and 2 Timothy 4:12 we see Paul sent Tychicus to see how they were doing. In Colossians 4:8 Paul sent Tychicus and Onesimus to them to pass along some news of Paul's' well-being. In 1 Thessalonians 3:22 Paul sent Timothy alone to teach them until they were established.
In Titus 1:5 Paul told Titus that he was left in Crete to put in order in the church things that were not in order. Paul had worked there, but left some things undone on purpose that Titus might take up the mantle. Also he was told himself to appoint elders in every town in the area. This was his commission from the apostle alone for him to do this by himself; not church leadership or a congregation. In addition, this means that some of the churches went without a plurality of elders or no elders for a period of time; a direct contradiction for those who insist there is no church where there are no elders.
In 1 Timothy 4:14 Paul references Timothy's pastorate that was given by the laying on of hands by the elders of the church. Here we find this gift given by God above [Ephesians 4:11], but administered in this case by a plurality of elders.
In Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in all the churches they had just planted in Asia. The church leaders did not do this work nor the congregation, but the apostles. Note that these “churches” were called churches before the appointment of elders. This is not ideal, but a fact nonetheless.
Acts 11:30, 15:4, 6, 23, 20:17, 1 Timothy 5:17-19; James 5:14, and 1 Peter 5:1 all mention a plurality of elders governing churches, but don't mention anything about how they were appointed or sent. It’s indicative that a plurality of Elders was the norm in 1st century New Testament churches.
In what we commonly call "the great commission," Jesus said the authority to call the shots in this world had been given to him. He said, "Go out preaching, teaching and baptizing." This commission was from Jesus to whom all authority had been given from God above. So we sow, and some of us reap, but God causes the growth. Do we add these to existing churches or start new ones? Yes. Once God saves, a church has been planted. We see this occur over and over and over again in the Book of Acts. Some are naive to believe they must be placed into existing churches. When God grows, the kingdom of God has been believed and new life has sprung forth. Perhaps, some reasons elders of a local church would not plant anew like God has already done in the NT is pride and fear. Pride because they want to build their kingdom and have another notch under their belt under the title, fruitfulness; or pride in that they think some will fall away if they are not "under" their leadership. And fear because they cannot entrust to God what God has already begun to do and that is grow. If God began to grow a soul, let the church take root there in that place with the sower, reaper, and "new creation." If you want to send leaders then great. Do it. If you want to send one, then great. If you want to send two, then great. If you want to send ten, then great! But God forbid we continue to grow our kingdom or that we attempt to put God in a box through a particular method. Let another church form in their own context and with their own gifting. Thus kingdom multiplication will start and will always prevent second and third generation Christians. Perhaps our concern with Jesus' way of building the kingdom is a fear of great apostasy, but our methods have not stopped that yet. Remember the parable of Jesus about the good seed sown by God's people and the weeds sown by the enemy [Matthew 13:24-30]? What did Jesus want us to do about that? Nothing! The servants ask, "Do you want us to go and gather the weeds [the apostate]? But Jesus said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'" We sow and reap and expand, but God causes the growth. Then in the end he will destroy the wicked apostates.
In conclusion to what the Bible speaks about being sent out, we find not one model to follow. There are some things we can affirm though. Churches ideally have a plurality of elders. Churches are autonomous and are not held accountable to another church; there is no hierarchical structure in place. Contrary to popular belief, sometimes one person is the sender for Gospel work and sometimes one person is sent for Gospel work; although I do find it wise to have at least two sending and at least two being sent out. Samaria, Crete, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch all had church leadership issues that would be called into question today by many church governments. Basically, they did not have leadership for a time of their existence as churches and their elder appointments all contradicted the other. Also contrary to popular belief, we find not one example of extensive assessment for Gospel work. Character is proven and ability to teach to tested. Many church assessments are pages and pages long and take years to complete. In Total Church, the authors mention the mystical assumption that many churches have placed on church planters,
“Church planting is part of normal church life. At present church planting carries a certain mystique; church planters are portrayed as a unique kind of rugged pioneer. But we need to create a culture in which, at the very least, transplanting is normal. Every local church should be aiming to transplant. Every local church should be raising up church planters.”Everyone should be seeking to see the church to grow through church planting and churches should be transplanting much more frequently.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Clarification On The Lord's Supper And Older Men
Readers,
Recently I was accused of two things by a pastor in a large church in our area:
1] That "I do not believe the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance or sacrament, but just anytime Christians eat together" and...
2] That "young men should not seek out the counsel and accountability of older men."
Unfortunately men sow discord in the Body when they speak things untrue but love covers a multitude of sin so I forgive the offenders.
I stated on my comments on June 24, 2009 4:10 PM
The accusations are pretty ridiculous stuff, I know.
As for the next false accusation, on June 9, 2009 9:27 PM in my comments I said,
I am a firm believer in seeking the counsel and accountability of those who are older and I example that life for all to see, especially those I disciple. In fact, this week I have been seeking the counsel of an older man quite a bit about some stuff and have plans on this upcoming week seeking the counsel of older men about some other issues.
Also, this past week at our gathering after our meal, we partook of the Lord's Supper very distinctly with bread and red wine.
Our Apostle Peter warns in the fourth chapter of his first epistle that Christians should not be meddlers. My brothers and sisters, let us not be meddlers. Let us not sow discord in the Body with false accusations.
Proverbs 19:5 A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape.
Proverbs 25:18 A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is like a war club, or a sword, or a sharp arrow.
Proverbs 6:16, 19 There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him...a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
Recently I was accused of two things by a pastor in a large church in our area:
1] That "I do not believe the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance or sacrament, but just anytime Christians eat together" and...
2] That "young men should not seek out the counsel and accountability of older men."
Unfortunately men sow discord in the Body when they speak things untrue but love covers a multitude of sin so I forgive the offenders.
I stated on my comments on June 24, 2009 4:10 PM
"I do believe the Lord's Supper is a sacrament of the church. I did not know I communicated otherwise."I also said in my comments on June 13, 2009 12:39 PM
"I also agree that simply eating with Christians is not communion."
The accusations are pretty ridiculous stuff, I know.
As for the next false accusation, on June 9, 2009 9:27 PM in my comments I said,
"I agree with Peter, "Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older."
But Paul's admonish to Titus is a different animal. There, the older are to "seek out," or let me use a different word for clarification "teach" and "train"...the younger, of course.
The young are not to "go out" teaching and training the older, but merely to place themselves under the authority of the older...the older are to seek out the younger to teach; the younger are to submit to the older."
I am a firm believer in seeking the counsel and accountability of those who are older and I example that life for all to see, especially those I disciple. In fact, this week I have been seeking the counsel of an older man quite a bit about some stuff and have plans on this upcoming week seeking the counsel of older men about some other issues.
Also, this past week at our gathering after our meal, we partook of the Lord's Supper very distinctly with bread and red wine.
Our Apostle Peter warns in the fourth chapter of his first epistle that Christians should not be meddlers. My brothers and sisters, let us not be meddlers. Let us not sow discord in the Body with false accusations.
Proverbs 19:5 A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape.
Proverbs 25:18 A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is like a war club, or a sword, or a sharp arrow.
Proverbs 6:16, 19 There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him...a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Flesh
I am utterly opposed to God.
My every moment and every breath is against him.
My thoughts plague me every second
with thoughts of death and hate.
Cynical, Sinister, and Scoffer are my names.
I breath out lies and deceit.
My heart is desperately wicked.
I am full of adulteries and murder, wouldn't you like to see?
And wonder of wonders, you are just like me
Just like my heart
Just like my hate
Just like my atheism
I glory in my self.
I take pride in my accomplishments and feats
I am a strong warrior
I am man and you are just like me.
Welcome to my flesh.
Glad to meet you, or at least that's what this smile says.
Oh wretched man, who will deliver me from this dead body?
I thank my God Jesus, I serve God!
My every moment and every breath is against him.
My thoughts plague me every second
with thoughts of death and hate.
Cynical, Sinister, and Scoffer are my names.
I breath out lies and deceit.
My heart is desperately wicked.
I am full of adulteries and murder, wouldn't you like to see?
And wonder of wonders, you are just like me
Just like my heart
Just like my hate
Just like my atheism
"God is empty just like me
Intoxicated with the madness,
I'm in love with my sadness"
"I used to be a little boy
So old in my shoes
And what i choose is my choice
What's a boy supposed to do?
The killer in me is the killer in you
My love
I send this smile over to you"
I glory in my self.
I take pride in my accomplishments and feats
I am a strong warrior
I am man and you are just like me.
Welcome to my flesh.
Glad to meet you, or at least that's what this smile says.
Oh wretched man, who will deliver me from this dead body?
I thank my God Jesus, I serve God!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
