Life in the Body

“The very word membership is of Christian origin, but it has been taken over by the world and emptied of all meaning. It must be most emphatically stated that items included in a homogeneous class are almost the reverse of what St. Paul meant. By members he meant that what we should call organs, things, essentially different from, and complementary to, one another. When we describe a man as ‘a member of the Church’ we usually mean nothing Pauline: we mean only that he is a unit—that he is one more specimen of some kind of things as X and Y.

The society into which the Christian is called at baptism is not a collective but a Body. If anyone came to it with the misconception that membership of the Church was membership in a debased modern sense—a massing together of persons as if they were pennies—he would be corrected at the threshold by the discovery that the head of this Body is so unlike the inferior members that they share no predicate with him save by analogy. We are summoned from the outset to combine as creatures with out Creator, as mortals with immortal, as redeemed sinners with sinless Redeemer. His presence, the interaction between him and us, must always be the overwhelmingly dominant factor in the life we are to lead within the Body; and any conception of Christian fellowship which does not mean primarily fellowship with him is out of court. We are all constantly teaching and learning, forgiving and being forgiven, representing Christ to man, and man to Christ. The sacrifice of selfish privacy which is daily demanded of us is daily repaid a hundredfold in the true growth of personality which the life of the Body encourages. Those who are members of one another become as diverse as the hand and the ear. That is why the worldlings are so monotonously alike compared with the almost fantastic variety of the saints. Obedience is the road to freedom, humility the road to pleasure, unity the road to personality.”

C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

Gospel-shaped Lenses

Do you have Gospel-shaped lenses through which you view the body of Christ? Do you look for evidences of God's grace in others? I was listening to Pastor Mark Driscoll discuss 3 types of people who are in the church: positives, negatives, and neutrals. My endeavor is to expand on this concept a bit and challenge you to assess how you view the body of Christ.

Positives are people who have a gospel mind-set about the church. They see other believers through a lens of grace, mercy, and forgiveness. Positives are for the body of Christ and default to trusting and giving the benefit of the doubt to others. In other words, Positives look for and expect the Holy Spirit's work in other people. Positives do not overlook your sin, nor are they unrealistically optimistic. Rather, they are those who are looking for the grace of God in your life. Positives are those who confront you for sin, but always in the context of seeing evidences of grace in your life. They do not keep a record of wrongs over time that they hang over your head and threaten to end your relationship over. Instead, Positives keep a record of God's grace in your life in an effort to always pursue reconciliation. Positives expect grace to prevail and the Holy Spirit to win the war with the flesh!

Neutrals are people who are still growing in their understanding of the gospel, but have not become strongly rooted in a gospel mind-set. Neutrals are not defined as those looking for sin in others, nor are they looking for evidences of grace. Neutrals may be emphasizing either of these aspects depending on the company they are keeping. If Neutrals are spending time with and being influenced by Positives, then they tend to see evidences of grace in others. If Neutrals are spending time with and being influenced by Negatives, then they tend to see sin and failures in others. Neutrals lack the gospel maturity to dismiss slanderous reports they hear about others and often give ear to gossip. Neutrals are the largest group of people in the church and they will tend to follow the culture of the church.

Negatives are people who have either an over-developed sense of human depravity or an under-developed sense of sanctifying grace, or both. Of course, a negative would rightly point out that since humanity is deeply wicked they could hardly be over-developed in their sense of human depravity. However, I would contend that they wrongly assume "total depravity" means men are as wicked as they can be, rather than they are fallen in every faculty. Further, I would argue they really do have an under-developed sense of sanctifying grace. Negatives are those who are expecting sin to trip others up and who notice it as soon as it happens. Negatives default to believing bad reports they hear about brothers. Negatives share those same bad reports with other people. Negatives see the sin in brothers far more than they see the evidences of grace. Negatives are quick to accuse and slow to defend. They are quick to assume the worst and slow to give the benefit of the doubt. Negatives are not people who expect the gospel to change others over time. They are those who keep records of wrongs. Negatives are those who are keeping a record of sin over time in order to present a full case to you of your sins and why they can no longer maintain a relationship with you. Negatives suffer from the fundamental flaw in their functional theology that the flesh will defeat the Spirit and that sin will conquer grace!

Now, I want to challenge you to assess whether you are a Positive, Neutral, or Negative. I spent a good portion of my life as a Negative. By the grace of God, I eventually moved from that mind-set through neutrality to being a Positive. I want to include a self-assement for determining where you fall with regard to these categories in two important relationships in your life:

Your Marriage (assuming you are both Christians)

1. Do you assume the best or worst about your spouse? When your spouse does something that looks remarkably similar to a past sin or failing, do you jump to the conclusion that they are in fact sinning in this manner again, or do you expect it may be just a misunderstanding?

2. Do you have an easier time listing marital irritations, sins your spouse has committed and failures in their lives; or do you have an easier time listing evidences of God's grace in changing them?

3. Would your spouse report that you are generally expressing thankfulness for the way God is working in their life; or that you are generally disappointed and nagging them about the ways in which they are failing? Ask them!

4. Would your friends say that your speech about your spouse reflects your thankfulness for what God is doing, or your complaints about what is lacking? Ask them!

Your Church Leaders (assuming they are Christians:))

1. Do you assume the best or the worst about your leaders? When your church leaders do something that looks remarkably similar to a past sin or failing, do you jump to the conclusion that they are in fact sinning in this manner again, or do you expect it may be just a misunderstanding?

2. Do you have an easier time listing bad decisions, sins leaders have committed and failures in their lives; or do you have an easier time listing evidences of God's grace in changing them?

3. Would your church leaders report that you are generally expressing thankfulness for the way God is working in the church, or that you generally seem disappointed and complain to them about the ways in which the church could be better? Do your pastors get a knot in their stomach when they see an email from you in their inbox, or do they anticipate great encouragement? Ask them.

4. Would your friends say that your speech about your church leaders reflects your thankfulness for what God is doing, or your complaints about what is lacking? Ask them.

5. Are you often participating in and entertaining gossip about leaders at your church, or are you known for not tolerating it? If others in the body feel comfortable telling you their complaints about the church leaders, then you have your answer!

Sadly, when we are a Negative toward others we are generally being defeated regularly by sin ourselves. We are being defeated because we are not constantly meditating on the Gospel, and it is not our constant motivation. We are defeated because the Gospel is the power to save and to sanctify and we aren't trusting in it! We need to remember that both our positional and practical holiness before God come by grace.

The major breakthrough for me came when I was considering Paul's view of the church at Corinth. Corinth was a church that was riddled with division over leaders, sexual immorality, lawsuits, idolatry, unholy practice of communion, an incorrect understanding of the role of women, and the abuse of spiritual gifts in the church. Yes, the apostle Paul rebuked and corrected this sin in the church. However, Paul began his letter saying something astounding about them:

⁴ I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, ⁵ that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— ⁶ even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you— ⁷ so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, ⁸ who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁹ God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

I pray that we can be as gospel-minded as the apostle!

To watch Mark Driscoll's sermon on Positives, Negatives, and Neutrals, watch here.

Is Predestinarian Enough?

As one of those pastors who falls into Collin Hansen's category of "young, restless, and reformed," I was interested to begin a dialogue with Dr. R. Scott Clark who challenged whether I am indeed reformed. He has written a book called "Recovering the Reformed Confession." In his book, he argues that a resurgence of predestinarian theology is not enough. In other words, Christology and soteriology are not enough to define this current resurgence of "Calvinists" as reformed. What is needed is a recovery of reformed theology, piety, and practice as stated in the historic reformed confessions of faith (the 3 forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession of Faith).

I was interested in this book primarily because I am someone who does not come from a reformed church tradition. I am a pastor who has come from a background of arminian, baptistic, and dispensational theology. It has only been over the last several years that I have become "reformed" in my doctrine of salvation. It has only been about 3 years since I moved toward a covenantal understanding of the Bible. I still remain baptistic in profession and practice. However, as one can see from the historical record, I am always game to change my position if convinced by Scripture.

The first chapter of the book was a good overview of where Dr. Clark hopes to take the reader, but it was definitely not a chapter that really commended this reader to continue on. However, the second and third chapter of the book were quite good and very helpful. In fact, I couldn't put down the book as I was reading through chapter 3 because I felt as if he was describing my own frustration as an evangelical Christian. In chapter 2 and 3, Dr. Clark discusses two acronyms, QIRC and QIRE. The acronyms stand for Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty and Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience.

While I found both chapters to be very interesting in mapping the history of where reformed churches have slid off the confessional rails of reformed theology, piety, and practice, I was personally challenged most by chapter 3. Dr. Clark lays out a case for the fact that reformed churches have moved away from a piety based on the "means of grace" and moved into a piety based upon a more mystical approach to experiencing God immedately. He contends, rightly I think, that the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings served to push reformed Christians away from seeking God's mediated presence through Word and sacrament toward a more subjective search for experiencing God immediately.

I want to be clear that Dr. Clark does not attempt to defend his position of biblical piety biblically. His project is not to provide an apologetic for reformed theology, piety, and practice. His project is to define what reformed theology, piety, and practice are, how they have been lost, and to call confessionally reformed churches back to them.

As a pastor who is now dealing with the effects of American revivalism in the lives of people, and who is trying to flush much of its baggage out his own theology, I welcome the discussion of a return to experiencing God through the mediation of Word and sacrament. I certainly look forward to the day when the church finds God's providential gift of his Word a sufficient one, and when we are more interested in the fruit of the Spirit than in the "manifestations" or "experiences" of the Spirit.

Sovereign Grace Resolutions for 2009

Here are 5 character traits I am resolving to pray for, teach and model in our church for 2009:

1. Resolved to be a church that humbly recognizes our sin and confesses it to God and one another trusting him to forgive us our sins and cleanse from all unrighteousness.

2. Resolved to be a church that declares the uniquely saving and only sufficient Savior, Jesus Christ, to ourselves and to a lost and dying world.

3. Resolved to be a church that delights in God’s Word, that pants for it as a deer for water, and that trusts in it alone as the all-sufficient guide for the sanctification of our church.

4. Resolved to be a church that is altogether separate from the world by pursuing, treasuring, and making much of Christ and his kingdom and by hating, fleeing, and repenting of the idols of this world’s kingdom.

5. Resolved to be a church that deeply loves one another through speaking the truth in love to one another, serving one another, sacrificing for one another, being patient with one another, bearing with one another, encouraging one another, praying for one another, and having hope for one another.

The Means of Grace vs. the Means of a Desperate Church Planter

“I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” --Matthew 16:18 “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” –1 Corinthians 3:5-7

I am a man who was called by God to be used of him to plant a church. I am not technically a church planter. I am technically someone who waters and sews, but ultimately God is the one who builds his church, brings growth, and tends his vine. In my just over two years of ministry, I have seen God work in incredible and precise ways that have encouraged me greatly. I have watched as God has shaped me as a pastor through this process. He has shown me incredible grace in keeping me faithful the majority of the time. However, I have also become faithless and searched for means to accomplish the “vision” I have for the church. In these short posts, I hope to walk through some of my more glaring moments of faithlessness. My hope is that this will be helpful for the encouragement of future “church planters” to avoid my same sins.

Sin #1: My Vision for Sovereign Grace

When I first started Sovereign Grace I was convinced I needed to have a “vision.” All of the church planting gurus told me that I should work hard on coming up with some master plan of how the church would look in a year, five years, ten years. What was my dream for this church plant? How will it be different from other churches in my area? What is my target group? How will I articulate my “vision” to the congregation?

I got to work on creating a vision for the church. I wrote it, put it in power point, told it to leaders, core group members, and visitors. My “vision” and its clear communication had definite advantages. I was giving people something they could visualize and would desire to join. I was communicating it in such a way that they knew where we were going. The “vision” had measurable goals so we could check our progress. We had definite numbers attached to “the vision” which helped with budgeting. When my “vision” was being accomplished, I was greatly satisfied. When it was not, I was deeply discouraged.

In the midst of my discouragement, I have spent time praying and seeking the Lord in his Word. It became clear to me that I was committing at least three errors:

1. I was basing my “vision” of the church more on contemporary business models, than I was on Scripture.
2. I was more interested in the means of effective church planters in gathering people, than I was in the means of grace provided by God.
3. I believed that building the church was more a function of my ability to cast a clear and compelling “vision,” then it was a function of the power of Christ’s Spirit.

The church is not a business in which we set up a “business plan” or “vision” and clearly communicate that to our customers and investors (By “vision,” I do not mean the clear picture God provides of the church in Scripture. I do not mean starting a church around a particular set of theological commitments, or with the goal to preach expositionally, or pray frequently, or send out missionaries, or have strong small groups. I mean the kind of vision that goes beyond basic biblical commitments and into the realm of measurable outcomes and target groups). The church is the elect people of God who are gathered through the preaching of the Word. When we endeavor to cast a “vision,” we are generally coming up with a picture of a preferable outcome for our venture. We are saying we would like to have “x” number of people, plant “x” number of churches, see “x” number of people baptized, etc. We set measurable goals and we strive to achieve them. We sell people on our preferable outcome and call them to participate and invest.

What happens when our vision is not coming to pass? What happens when people start attending our church who don’t match our target group? What happens when members start to become disappointed that our vision has altered? What happens when a more dynamic church planter with a grander vision and more resources comes along?

All of these questions are generally answered in the same manner: “We need to rethink our “vision”, reprogram our ministries so we become better at achieving it, possibly re-staff our church to align better with the “vision,” and redouble our efforts to bring the “vision” to fruition. We should attend more conference, read more books, and listen to more messages about what other guys are doing to bring about the picture we want to see here.”

Instead, we should repent, read our Bible, and pray for the Lord to align our wills with his. We do not need more “vision” or “better techniques” or “greater effort.” What we need is a Biblical vision of the church! We need to see the church as the gathered people of God. We need to understand that these people are gathered to hear the Word preached, to pray, to sing, to care for one another, to be equipped to build one another up, and to be sent out to evangelize the lost. Certainly, we should plan how this is best accomplished. However, to establish some “vision” with numbers and a timeline attached is to assume that our job as pastors is grander than it is. It is too assume that we build the church, or we bring the increase. It is also to assume that faithful and fruitful ministry always equates with growing numbers of people in our church plant.

How do we gather people to our local church? We simply pray and preach the Word to everyone we come in contact with. We depend on the power of the Holy Spirit to call out Christ’s elect. If we simply employ the means of grace and look to God to work powerfully, God will do far more abundantly than we could ever hope or think. We may not draw in large numbers of people or be erecting buildings on our timeline, but God’s Spirit will be working to powerfully change the people he has gathered to the local church he is building through us.

The Local Church Doesn't Belong in the Hallway

Reflections on why pastors/elders must commit to a confessional statement...

“I hope no reader will suppose that ‘mere’ Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions - as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: ‘Do I like that kind of service?’ but ‘Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular doorkeeper?’

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.” ---CS Lewis

For several years I struggled with finding my identity within Evangelicalism. I wondered if there was a theological tradition to which I belonged. I wondered if it was even right to want to belong to a particular theological tradition. Should I not just remain living in the “hallway” of this “house” called Christianity? Why choose a “room?”

As I read and studied men from various schools of thought within evangelical Christianity, I realized that various hermeneutical methodologies were employed by different traditions within evangelical circles. I also realized that each of these schools of thought came to different theological convictions with regard to the character and work of God. These different hermeneutical methodologies and resulting doctrines are what define the various “rooms” in the “house of Christianity.”

I also realized that while the “house of Christianity” operates by a certain set of biblically defined doctrines and principles that those in each and every “room” agree we all share in common, each of the “rooms” also operates by a set of what they consider to be biblically defined doctrines and principles. Further, I realized that while the more general and universally agreed to doctrines of Christianity are useful for keeping unity when we meet in the “hallway,” they are not sufficient for maintaining unity in the close fellowship required in individual “rooms.”

I spent the majority of my Christian life in a church, and even was a pastor in a church, which was trying to live in the “hallway.” I am not saying this in a derogatory manner because I believe this church was laboring to hold firm to truths of Scripture that are central and around which we all agree to gather in the “hallway” for occasional fellowship, worship, and evangelism. I believe this local church was diligently preaching, praying, and working to glorify God through shepherding his people. So, why was I frustrated? Why did I so often find myself at odds with decisions in priorities, preaching, and programming for the church?

It was not until I left to plant a church that I discovered I was frustrated, and at odds, with my brothers in Christ because I was trying to live in the “hallway,” when I had already chosen a “room.” I was already committed to a body of doctrine that I believed was thoroughly biblical and that defines priorities, preaching, and programming in the church. I also realized that others with whom I shared this “hallway” had chosen other “rooms.” We were all operating by “house rules,” and simultaneously were operating by different “room rules.” While the “house rules” helped us maintain unity, there was also a percolating disunity that I experienced. This disunity was driven by the fact that we all hoped the church would move into our “room,” and while we were gracious “hallmates,” we had different rules and expectations that caused fellowship to be strained and shallow. These differences were “the elephant in the hall” that we rarely discussed.

Does this lack of deep unity and fellowship in my former pastoral staff and elders betray a defect in character? No. In fact, I think this problem is a derivative of a virtuous evangelical desire to meet in the “hallway” as much as possible. This is a desire that is so strong that many local churches are trying to “pitch their tents and camp in the hallway.” However, they have failed to understand that the deepest unity and fellowship is found in the common doctrinal commitments, mission, and core values found in each “room.” As Lewis said, “But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals.”

My study of the Word of God has led me into the “room” known as Reformed theology. This is a theology that I believe most accurately reflects the biblical teachings of God and his work. Further, I am not only in the “room” of Reformed theology, I am called to be a leader in that “room.” Therefore, I must operate as a leader in that “room” according to the priorities, principles, and practices that are consistent with Reformed theology. God did not call me to pastor the local church and provide me with a set of biblical commitments that are limited to the “hallway.”

I must preach reformed theology. I must shape the training of elders, the discipleship of believers, the evangelism of the lost, the corporate worship services, the small group meetings, the children’s ministry, the counseling ministry, the prayer meetings, the way we live in community all in accord with what I believe is sound doctrine. If I lead the church in a manner inconsistent with my biblical commitments, I would be, at best, serving only milk instead of meat. I would be a leader who is getting fat on the word while everyone else in the church is being underfed. At worst, I would be a leader who is disingenuous and who lies to his people.

I do not shepherd this local church alone. I am not the only leader in the “room.” God has called other men to lead alongside of me. How do we insure that we maintain deep unity and fellowship among our leaders, and consequently, in our church? How do we define the priorities, principles, and practices of the “room?” How do we determine what will be preached, or what food will be served, in our church? This is vitally important for it is in the faith that true unity is found in the local church (Ephesians 4:13). We must have elders who are able to teach sound doctrine and refute those who contradict (Titus 1:9). We must teach what we believe accords with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). We must follow the pattern of sound words we have been taught and guard the deposit that has been entrusted to us (2 Timothy 1:13-14).

Certainly, we would maintain that more has been entrusted to us and must be taught and protected by our elders than the minimal doctrines that we agree to in the “hallway.” Can anyone really argue that our doctrine of who God is and how he works in predestination, election, calling, justification, and sanctification is not important enough to define the priorities, principles, and practices of our church by? Is it true that our view of man and his condition, of the church and its ordinances, of the biblical covenants and their fulfillment, of the Holy Spirit and his gifts are all doctrines that should be left to the privacy of the pastor’s study, while the majority of the local church lives in the “hallway?” Is it really possible to leave those doctrines to occasional sermons and to the discretion of some to practice? Is it really preferable to make this satisfyingly rich food into an occasional meal, and withhold it from being a staple of the church? If we are committed to the Reformed view of the Gospel, why wouldn’t we serve it to people in every sermon and ministry? How can we truly be a Gospel-centered church, if we believe we are leaving elements of the Gospel for only those who can feed themselves? As a wise pastor once asked me, “How can a man called of God to be a shepherd commissioned by Jesus to ‘teaching them all that I have commanded you’ and to the apostolic injunction and example of ‘I have not hesitated to declare to you the whole counsel of God’ see his teaching ministry as less in scope than what he believes and confesses himself? If what he holds to in his own confession is not teachable to his flock, or defendable with his flock, then why does he believe it is pleasing and glorifying to God for him to hold these beliefs, and edifying to his own soul, but not to his congregation?”

At the end of the day, I do not really believe it is preferable, or possible, for a local church to camp in the “hallway.” If the elders of a local church do not teach and defend a much more comprehensive confessional statement, then the sheep will develop their own doctrines. The most positive outcome will be that the church will be left with factions and pockets of people who hold to various doctrinal positions, but who are loosely unified around the doctrines of the “hallway.” The depth of fellowship that is experienced in a community that is unified in the faith, and on a common mission, will be lost. Further, the elders will adopt a set of “hallway rules” that value unity over truth and pragmatism over principle, rather than move into a “room” that finds unity in the truth and practice that springs from principle. If the elders fail to adopt these “hallway rules,” their church will split. If they do adopt them, their church will slowly die from malnutrition because the meal isn’t being served in the “hallway.”