Blog Updates
For those of you who are on Facebook be sure to join the Missio Dei Blog Network.
Whatever
Maybe after this someone will sue Joel for shipwrecked faith.
World News
If you want to take a break from watching the Olympics the CNN special God’s Warriors looks to be very intriguing. I have watched most of the videos on the website and they have been interesting. I am going to try and record it and then post my thoughts; I would love to hear yours as well.
Blog Updates
Check out the Resources page as I have recently added some new papers. There are more updates on the way and I hope to have the new Links page up and running sometime this month.
Culture
CNN asks “Black and single: Is marriage really for white people?” This article is incredibly interesting and demonstrates how events in culture, such as being black and single, which appear to be normative eventually become accepted as being right. Truth however is not determined by the whims of the polis. Why do you think this is the cultural norm and how does one address such an issue?
In “The Feminization of the American Male From Top to Toe” Dr. Randy L. Stinson reflects on Tony Glenville’s Top to Toe: A Comprehensive Guide to the Grooming of the Modern Male. Such a book would seem trivial at best; however, Dr. Stinson does a fantastic job connecting the philosophy of this book to deadly patterns that have emerged in the church.
From the article:
Men reading Glenville’s book will only be encouraged in their sinful tendency to look out for themselves. If men are focused on such trivial things as dry skin and pampering themselves with long baths, it will be all the more difficult to expect them to lead, provide, and protect. . . . What we need is a church culture that will require boys and men to do hard things, to cultivate toughness, resilience, and courage, top to toe.
Economics
“Exxon posts new profit record:” Nothing new here; it seems that every quarter they are posting record earnings. I don’t typically buy into conspiracy theories but I do remember a time when gas prices rising over $0.90 was outrageous. If you have not begun already then I suggest that you start saving your cash for an electric/hydrogen car.
Theology
John MacArthur has taken a brief look at Martin Luther in a short, but fantastic post, entitled “No Compromise.”
Joe R. Miller has interviewed Eric Bryant about his recent book Peppermint Filled Piñatas: Breaking Through Tolerance and Embracing Love. Check out the interview here.
The Olympics
Foreign Policy has an article up about the real meaning behind the summer Olympic Games. Toss your altruism aside because the Olympics are all about one thing: profit. Take a look at “Prime Numbers: Rings of Gold” for all the dirty details.
In the June 2008 issue of The Briefing, published by Matthias Media, there was a rather interesting article entitled “The Dangers of Valuing Preaching” by William Philip. In the article he describes the recent resurgence of interest and thirst for expository preaching and how this surge mirrors movements of the past that have inevitably lead to a dead orthodoxy where act and science of preaching overshadowed its biblical purpose. From this he shows the reader three possible shifts in preaching that could potentially lead to this deadly error. As the article is not available online I will summarize his points below; however, if you are a pastor I highly recommend that you obtain a copy of the article and study it for the integrity of your ministry and the health of your flock.
“1. A shift from content to form”
The danger here is quite simple and yet it is a massive snare into which many have fallen. Whether you are just stepping into your role as an expositor or a seasoned exegete chances are there is a form of preaching with which you are most comfortable; this can be from the hottest book that is fresh off the press or patterns that have been developed over a lifetime of preaching. The danger is not the comfort but the form of preaching which you impose upon the text of Scripture. Here he points the reader to Luke 24:32, “Did not our hearts burn within us … while he opened the Scriptures?” and he notes that the response of the disciples indicates the focus of Christ’s proclamation, namely the text of Scripture. May we preach in such a way that our preaching would be transparent and the hearts of men be left enamored with the Word of God.
“2. A shift from vertical to horizontal”
I think the danger of this shift is the most subtle of the three. It is at this point that the preacher begins to view preaching as a merely human exercise as he studies the Word, preaches the Word, and the congregation hears the Word. Rather we must preach as men called by and gifted by God to equip the people of God, through the faithful exposition of the living Word of God, in the power and presence of God, so that He might take His Word and use it to accomplish His purposes in the hearts of His people and among the nations.
“3. A shift from the corporate to the individual”
The danger presented here runs rampant throughout churches affected by western culture. This shift occurs in one or both of the following areas preaching either becomes about an egotistical preacher or it becomes about a narcissistic “church member.” Either way the focus shifts from God addressing his gathered people, preacher included, to a man addressing men. This shift is strikingly similar to the one above and in many ways represents the end result of point #2. Once the focus shifts from God to man it will inevitably shift from man, in general, to a particular man; whether or not that particular man is in the congregation or the pulpit the shift is the same. Contrasting this he notes the overwhelming congregational emphasis of Scripture noting the emphasis in Hebrews of the congregation “drawing near” to God. For me I immediately think of the epistle to the church in Ephesus, aka Ephesians, where Paul writes to the church, not an individual, concerning the armor of God, an armor worn not by an individual but by a congregation. I also think of James 5:13-20 where we see the church mutually caring for and protecting itself. We preach in such a way that the church is equipped for and is exhorted to undertake its mission as the called out people of God.
What do you think about Philip’s three deadly shifts? Do you see these as a danger to your ministry? With the recent resurgence of demand for expository preaching do you see these shifts as a current danger in Evangelicalism? What do you propose we do to guard ourselves against this danger?
History and Culture
Pulpit Magazine has a fantastic review of Stephen J. Nichols new book, Jesus, Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to the Passion of the Christ.
Missiology
Ed Stetzer has posted a presentation that he did several weeks ago at Every Nation ministries entitled Movemental Christianity Presentation.
Eric Bryant has posted an outline of a recent teleseminar entitled “Catalyzing Community;” for those of you interested in listening the audio is below.
Both of the above posts are great examples of similar missional paradigms and I would love to hear your thoughts on them.
Seminary
Earlier this year I came across an article written by John M. Frame in 1972 and later published in 1978. The article, “Proposal For A New Seminary” is extremely intriguing, especially coming from an individual such as Dr. Frame. What makes it more interesting are the postscripts from Dr. Frame as he reflects upon his own writing.
Theology
John Piper has received much attention lately on the theme of baptism and has now posted the second installment of a three part series on church membership and baptism. This week’s sermon “What Is Baptism, and How Important Is It?” is particularly insightful on several counts. I am waiting to hear the final sermon in this series and then will likely devote a post to reflecting on it.
I am sure that most of you are familiar with the Seeker Driven and Seeker Sensitive paradigms of corporate worship. They have after all been popular methods of “church growth” for quite some time now. In a recent conversation I had with a friend from seminary he described his church as being “seeker coherent” a phrase which I think adequately describes the biblical model for corporate worship and also fits well within the current church growth jargon so as to be easily understood. I want to look at these three paradigms side by side and see how this new category of Seeker Coherent differs from the other two. I will begin by stating that both the Seeker Driven and Seeker Sensitive paradigms are built upon false presuppositions which find no biblical support.
Seeker Driven
This model is syncretistic at best. The needs of the so called “seeker” drive the direction of all that the church does. This means that the church’s theology and methodology are radically altered by the needs of those it is seeking to attract. In this paradigm the church tends to be focused on meeting felt needs, which are usually physical or psychological, rather than on proclaiming the gospel and equipping the saints for the work of the ministry.
Seeker Sensitive
This is by far the most popular model within Evangelicalism and chances are that the methodology of the corporate worship service that you attend has been profoundly affected by this methodology. This model can be summarized by the phrase “build it and they will come” like the above model it presupposes that hordes of lost individuals in rebellion against their creator are lining up to attend corporate worship somewhere every Sunday. Within this model the focus is on meeting felt needs as above and gospel proclamation, although this can be debated, rather than equipping the saints for the work of the ministry. Within this model the pastor is the church’s primary evangelist and “seekers” are brought to this corporate event to hear the gospel.
Seeker Coherent
Unlike the above two models this model’s primary focus in on equipping the saints for the work of the ministry. Since corporate worship is the gathering of the people of God to worship God it is counterintuitive to make the central focus of this event the evangelization of the lost. Rather the corporate gathering of the church aims to glorify God and to equip the saints for the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:11-13). If it is all about equipping believers and glorifying God then why have seeker in the title? I think the answer is found in Scripture.
“22Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you” (I Corinthians 14:22-25).
There is far too much going on in this text to fully explain here; however, several observations can be made that are pertinent to the discussion at hand. Critical to understanding the presence of unbelievers in the corporate assembly of the church is the repetition of the conjunction “if” Paul is giving a hypothetical situation. Mass amounts of unbelievers entering the assembly is not normative; this is a devastating blow to the Seeker Driven and Seeker Sensitive paradigms. Furthermore, if Paul were encouraging a Seeker Driven/Sensitive paradigm, as proponents of these views claim, then why would he discourage the use of tongues if they are a sign for unbelievers? Rather he encourages them to prophesy, to corporately proclaim the Word of God, and because of this the unbeliever will be convicted of both his sin and the presence of God. What Paul is encouraging them to do is to focus on equipping the saints for the work of the ministry to preach to proclaim the Word of God; he want the glory of God and the people of God to be the central focus of the corporate gathering of the Church.
However, notice also what he is arguing for. He is arguing that what happens in the assembly should be coherent, easily understood, by any unbelievers who should enter. Thus we have a church both fulfilling its biblical purpose and doing so in a way that is comprehensible to the culture in which that church gathers.
An Addendum
While “Seeker Coherent” fits well within the current church growth lingo I do not prefer to use the term “seeker” because it seems to contradict Romans 3:10-11. Within Scripture there is a category of individuals known as “God-fearing.” Such language is certainly unpopular in an age where God is viewed as a cosmic Santa Clause rather than a sovereign Creator and Judge; however, different terminology should be used to emphasize the total depravity of man and the sovereignty of God in electing individuals to salvation.
Missio Dei 