Converts or Disciples: Which Are We Making?

I have been thinking recently about our mission as followers of Christ. Several areas could fall under this broad topic, but what draws my attention is the expansion of the Kingdom of God. What is required? How are we to go about it?

At first blush, someone would say the answer is to concentrate on evangelism. In other words, we need to get the message of the gospel out. True, we do need to make the gospel known. After all, how will they believe unless they hear, and how will they hear unless someone is sent? However, having this as an all-encompassing focus, the model is little more than multilevel marketing wherein each person is to bring so many to Christ, then those in the next level do the same. Someone may ask, “What is wrong with this model if people are won to Christ?” The problem is that they are being converted to an individual, pastor, local church, denomination, etc. but not to Christ. Converts buy into a program or mentality that is more concerned with earning credit toward an excellent report card at the final judgment than living as a believer and letting others see and hear Christ, becoming more wedded to a program than the Bridegroom. More correct would be living like the sheep in Matthew 25 who went about their routine existence and were surprised that their good deeds were done to and for Jesus Himself.

If we look at Scripture, we see a different practice. Before Jesus was taken in a cloud, He left instructions recorded in two forms: be My witnesses (Acts 1:8) and make disciples (Mt 28:19). Witnesses are those who saw, heard, or otherwise experienced an event and can relate facts to another. In short, they talk about what happened, not themselves. Here is where we tend to insert ourselves into the story. While there is a strong urge to evaluate the experience, this needs to be avoided: the emphasis is on the objective reality. For the believer, then, this translates to being a witness of Christ and the gospel. We relate the plan of redemption that culminated in the cross of Christ for our sins. We witness to the salvific working of the Godhead. We testify to the truth of God in three persons. We witness to the sure hope of Christ’s return, our bodily resurrection, Judgment Day, and life eternal. We witness to the recorded testimony handed down from one generation to the next, corroborated by independent and sometimes antagonistic evidence. In other words, we confess the Apostle’s Creed. Notice that nothing is said of making converts, so why do we spend so much time, energy, and money doing that very thing? Constant energy is expended on learning formulaic questions and answers to convince someone to “give your heart to Jesus” or “accept Jesus into your heart.” An emphasis is always to pressure someone through closing the deal.

What about making disciples? We think that we know what this entails, but it gets relegated to part two of a process that begins with the decision. But this is not how the command is stated. The two-step process is a symptom of an improper understanding we have as to whose disciples these are that are being made. Jesus said to make disciples by baptizing and teaching. Notice there is no initial requirement for an emotional appeal from a preacher. Instead, we proclaim the good news, and when the hearer is pricked in the spirit, realizing his sin and need of repentance, he is baptized as a confession of faith imparting the Holy Spirit, new life, etc. (Rom 6; Gal 2; Col 3; 1 Pet 3); then after baptism, teaching ensues in all that Jesus commanded. Instead of drawing people to ourselves, we become examples to other believers and the world. The disciples that come of this are not ours: they are the Lord’s and His alone.

Having a proper perspective of whose disciples these are, and what our true mandate is, how should this be reflected in our local congregations? First, we should reject programs specifically geared to tell a simplistic message: Chick tracts, Four Spiritual Laws, etc. While these are well intended, they make evangelism formulaic and superficial. Second, we need to catechize believers. We need to give them the tools to share the faith, The point of this exercise is to be sharing what you purportedly trusted from the beginning. What does God require (Ten Commandments)? What has God done for me (Apostle’s Creed)? How do I now come before Him (Lord’s Prayer)? Having our hearts and minds centered on what has been gained in Christ, our worship and instruction should revolve around these core elements to the glory of God.

Men, It's Your Responsibility

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.  You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.  (Deut 6:6-7)

On Monday, I shared a link on Facebook to a post at Brothers of John the Steadfast entitled “Real Men Catechize their Children” reaffirming the responsibility of fathers to teach their children the truths they have learned from God’s Word.  Thinking on the subject later, I was reminded of what Martin Luther wrote in his preface to the Small Catechism:

The deplorable, miserable condition which I discovered lately when I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare this Catechism, or Christian doctrine, in this small, plain, simple form.  Mercy!  Dear God, what manifold misery I beheld!  The common people, especially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable and incompetent to teach [so much so, that one is ashamed to speak of it].  Nevertheless, all maintain that they are Christians, have been baptized and receive the holy Sacraments.  Yet they cannot even recite either the Lord’s Prayer, or the Creed, or the Ten Commandments.  They live like dumb brutes and irrational hogs.  Now that the Gospel has come, they have nicely learned to abuse all liberty like experts.

O bishops!  What answer will you ever give to Christ for having so shamefully neglected the people and never for a moment discharged your office?  May all misfortune run from you!  I do not wish at this place to invoke evil on your heads.  You command the Sacrament in one form and insist on your human laws, and yet at the same time you do not care in the least whether the people know the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, or any part of the Word of God.  Woe, woe, unto you forever!

Small Catechism, Preface.1-3

This is a sorry state of affairs but quite common today.  Too many fathers are guilty of dereliction of duty concerning their families.  Somewhere along the way, we determined that religious or spiritual matters are too feminine for a man’s man.  Let mom do it.  If you ask me, the fathers are scared.  They are rightly fear handling holy things, and because there is no good body of instruction or pattern of discipleship, they feel unqualified.  They did not learn how from either their fathers or their pastors.  Luther rails against both for neglecting responsibilities and not teaching others what Christ has commanded.

Parachurch ministries have popped up to help fill the gap.  The Navigators and Verge Network both have discipleship materials and training, but what they offer for a fee should be readily available in the local assembly for no charge because it is common practice, handed from one person or generation to the next.  Think about this: publishing companies were not around when Israel wandered in the wilderness.  The people needed to learn and remember the Law and be reminded regularly through instruction from the priests.  This instruction the parents passed to their families.  I do not fault the parachurch organizations for their work: the blame belongs at the local level.

Scripture is divinely powerful and effectual.  It changed you.  It changes you.  The good work begun in you will be brought to completion at the day of Christ (Phil 1:6).  Pastors, preach and teach the Word rightly.  Fathers (and by extension mothers), teach your children.  Men and women, teach younger men and women.  In other words, follow Paul’s instruction to Titus and Timothy:

But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.  Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.  Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine.  They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.  Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled.  (Titus 2:1-6)

You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.  (2 Tim 2:1-2)

Nothing has been revoked, rescinded, or invalidated.  Teach the abundance of God’s grace in Christ Jesus.

Disciple-Making and Worship

Recently, David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church, identified weaknesses in what has become a de facto church-plant model and summarized it this way:

Beyond this there are little variations: a video clip here, a testimony there. But the look, feel and even the doctrine of these church plants are virtual carbon copies of one another. We haven’t had this much conformity in worship since the days of medieval Catholicism.

At first, that may appear to be a good thing.  After all, Jesus prayed for the unity of the Church (John 17:11).  However, may I suggest that the reason church plants all look the same is because the “mother” congregations are already using this organization; or those starting the plants are using the model as a way to break with traditionalism.  Pragmatism drives the push for this model: if it works, we need to catch the wave and follow suit.  It is a stage presentation meant to draw people into the building, not make disciples; or if they are being made, growth is sporadic or anemic.  What presuppositions drive the poor disciple-making practices?

In modern Evangelical parlance, the Christian life is a two-step process: 1) hear the gospel and believe, and 2) become a disciple by according to whatever biblical markers are used as systematized by a particular denomination.  These two are more properly referred to as justification and sanctification.  While scripture certainly does speak of them separately, they are not regarded so much as two steps for the believer, but as two works performed by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.  But believers are disciples.  We can see this when we look at our Lord’s closing instruction to the eleven:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  (John 28:18-20)

A disciple is made by being baptized and taught.  There is no extra step.  You are a disciple, or you are not.  This is the same process used in Jesus’ ministry as He went out proclaiming “Repent, for kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 4:17).  Those who repented were baptized (John 3:22, 26; 4:1-3) and taught, thus immediately becoming disciples.  We see this played out on the Day of Pentecost as Peter preached a sermon provoking repentance:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”  And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.… So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.  (Acts 2:37-41)

Later in Acts, the growth of the Church is referred to as an increase in disciples, not as an increase in believers (Acts 6:1-2, 7).  These continued as disciples, though we do see that some turned back as when Jesus’ teaching became hard (John 6:60-66).  One can argue whether their faith was genuine, however all who were baptized and taught were called disciples as they actively followed Christ.

The two-stage approach of the Christian life has caused a mindset that all activities on Sunday morning be designed to bring people into the building and help them be comfortable.  If sin, righteous, and judgment are mentioned, they are presented as something keeping you away from a close, loving relationship with God; and while that is technically true, it leaves open the thought that the listener can try harder to improve the relationship by being a better person.  The truth is that only because of the redeeming work of our Lord Jesus can anyone hope to enter into or grow in those things promised through the gospel.

If Christ is to be preëminent, why are clear Law and Gospel texts in song and sermon being replaced with texts that are about me and my life?  Why are people and programs promoted more than the Savior?  Should not Sunday worship be a complete immersion into all that God has wrought in Christ?  Isn’t that where the disciple is most enlivened?  Rather than a place of comfort, the worship service should be a place where Christ is presented, openly and boldly, for all to feed on and for which we return our praise.  Disciples are being formed and fed on Sunday morning.  When the full force of God’s Law is delivered, both believer and unbeliever will squirm in their need; and when the full sweetness of the Gospel is offered, both will see the abundance of grace for sin.  Though the response may vary, the offer is clear.  Whatever someone’s spiritual condition, Christ’s atoning work will have been proclaimed and the Almighty Triune God will have been exalted.

Why am I pressing this?  Let's face facts: many of those who sit in the pews on a given Sunday will not read their Bibles or study any catechetical material for the remainder of the week.  These need substantive spiritual nourishment from the shepherd of the local flock, since he is the only biblical source of their knowledge.  The remainder will eat in pastures of varying nutritional value—some beneficial, another sweet to the taste but souring the stomach, and possibly a few swallowing poison.  Here, too, the shepherd has a lead role, guiding the flock to where good pasture can be found.  The Chief Shepherd warned of both goatherds and wolves who care nothing for the sheep save for fleecing or chewing them up.

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.  And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.  (1 Pet 5:1-4)

Garbage In, Garbage Out? We Can Do Better.

In a recent episode of the “Boars in the Vineyard” podcast, one of the two pastors had to fly solo, so he decided to review the top five singles of the day in the Christian & Gospel genre of iTunes.  Those songs were:

• •  How Can It Be – Lauren Dangle
• •  Soul on Fire – Third Day
• •  Because He Lives (Amen) – Matt Maher
• •  Oceans (Where Feet May Fall) – Hillsong UNITED
• •  Greater – Mercy Me

Most of these I had heard previously, though the first was new.  While listening, my impression was that the middle selection by Matt Maher was the best lyrically.  Overall, the content demonstrated a depth of understanding about who Jesus Christ is and our position because of His sacrifice that reached far beyond what was communicated in the other four reviewed.  The lyrics can be found here.

Yes, the song is a rewrite of Bill and Gloria Gaither’s “Because He Lives.”  That is why it seems familiar, and their names are given as co-authors.  Notice though, that Maher decided to begin with a creedal affirmation in the Lord Jesus—something uncommon in Christian music—and continued with other creedal themes: original sin, resurrection, and life everlasting.  In some ways, he lyrically improved the Gaither version, but unfortunately retained the formulaic repetition to which the music industry and audience is accustomed.

What I found most interesting in the comparison was that Matt Maher is a practicing Roman Catholic.  He shamed the content of the avowed Evangelicals also reviewed.  While someone might make a case that this was accomplished only because he began with a song written by an Evangelical, I only need to point to Maher’s song “Christ Is Risen” to put this to rest.  His music has substance.

You might ask, “How is that possible?  Roman Catholics don’t have the truth.”  What they have and take seriously are the early creeds coupled with deliberate, systematic catechesis.  Church groups and denominations that eschew creeds, confessions, and catechesis tend to rely on a hodgepodge of teaching hoping that something sticks.  Those that espouse the same are beginning with a better system of instruction, unfortunately, many (most?) have decided to relegate these to the attic to dust off periodically as curios of antiquity or the trash heap for final disposal.  We should not be surprised by Matt Maher.  He is the product of systematic instruction: what goes in, comes out.  Or as Jesus Himself put it:

The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.  (Lu 6:45)

What we are taught as important readily spills forth from our lips, pens, and song lyrics.

Christians are called to disciple nations by baptizing and teaching all that Jesus taught us (Mt 28:19).*  Pray that the Church reaffirms its high and holy calling to faithfully instruct the next generation and reclaims the bounteous treasure that has been entrusted to faithful men, that both inside and outside the gathering of its people each Sunday, Christ is effectively and rightly made known.


*  He is the Word of God incarnate, thus making Him the source, subject, and object of all Scripture.

The Great Commission: It Just Adds Up

I would dare say that most evangelical Christians have heard of the “Great Commission” and could give one or two points from it—go, make disciples, maybe something about baptism and teaching, but probably nothing else.  I dare say that very few know the entire passage:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  (Matt 28:18-20)

These instructions given in Galilee are not the entirety of all of Jesus’ final commissioning.  Luke will write of later occurrences wherein Jesus gives more detail, first in Jerusalem:

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.  You are witnesses of these things.  And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you.  But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”  (Luke 24:45-49)

then in the proximity of Mount Olivet:

He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”  (Acts 1:7-8)

These three passages comprise the fullness of the Great Commission,† each passage giving important information regarding the task given to the apostles. Moving chronologically, notice where Jesus begins—he is the seat of authority.  From this basis, he laid down a definite ongoing plan to the apostles for growth of the Kingdom of God.  There is a call to go, and a command to make disciples through his authority by baptizing and teaching* with an assurance of his ongoing presence.  These men were given an outline for what their lives would be like as they lived before others in the power of the Holy Spirit without explicit instruction as far as the extent of their travel or the practical manifestation of Jesus’ presence.  This passage could be assigned the designation “Great Result” of the faithful proclamation of the gospel.

Moving to the Jerusalem account, Jesus opened their understanding of his death and resurrection and explained that they would be empowered to take his message of repentance and forgiveness to all ethnic groups.  This was not a new concept to the Jews, since the scriptures state that the nations would praise God (Psa 67:3-4; 72:11-17), but the expectation was that the nations would come to Jerusalem (2 Chr 6:32-33).  Jesus now points the apostles outward: Jerusalem is the epicenter of the movement, not the hub.  We can refer to this passage as the “Great Message.”

Lastly, just before he was taken up, Jesus tells the apostles near Olivet that they will finally receive the promised empowerment through the Holy Spirit in order to perform the task he gave them.  The plan was to start from where they were and move out gradually, and thus not overlook any people group.  All would hear the message of the gospel in this controlled thrust.  This passage can be described as the “Great Empowerment.”

Taken together, we can ascertain the Lord’s plan in preparing his disciples to carry the gospel out.  To sum up in mathematical terms, we have:

Great Result + Great Message + Great Empowerment = Great Commission

Jesus gives his Church the task, message, empowerment, authority, and target audience to announce his remedy for sin.  May his glorious gospel go forth as his people make it known.


*  While the Greek word poreuthentes is a participle that can be translated “going / as you go,” Robert H. Mounce makes a case that “Jesus’ instructions are proactive; we are to move out into the world, not simple [sic] make disciples when we happen to be there.”  In other words, Jesus was telling the apostles that they would certainly be going out and, as they went, would make disciples.  See http://zondervan.typepad.com/koinonia/2008/10/the-participle-as-imperative.html.
†  I am reticent to use Mark 16:15-18.  Though verses 9-20 are entirely accurate in the information they convey, it was most likely added later and is nothing more than a brief synopsis of Jesus’ post-resurrection ministry and the later apostolic era.

Origen on Gentleness in God's Discipline

I have begun reading Origen of Alexandria: Exegetical Works on Ezekiel, Roger Pearse, ed., Mischa Hooker, trans.  Those who have a general knowledge of Origen know that he would stretch the allegorical application of scripture beyond proper measure.  This is disappointing because Origen's grasp of scripture and ability to communicate are quickly coming to the fore in this work.  Consider the following as this church father describes the goodness of God in discipline.

But there might be someone who, taking offense at the very word “anger,” would complain of it in God.  To such a one, I will answer that the anger of God is not so much anger as necessary providential direction.  Hear what the action of God’s anger is: to reprove, to correct, to improve.  “Lord do not rebuke me in your anger, and do not reprove me in your fury.”*  He who says this knows that the fury of God is not without use for health, but that it is applied for the purpose of curing those who are sick, for improving those who scorned to hear his words.  And the Psalmist prays that he may not be “improved” by such remedies for this reason: that he may not receive back his former good health with the medicine of punishment.  It is as if a slave who has already been put into position in the midst of the whips were to beseech his master, promising again that he will carry out [the master’s] orders, and were to say: “Master, do not rebuke me in your anger, and do not reprove me in your fury.”  All things that are of God are good; and we deserve to be reproved.  Also in the curses of Leviticus, it is written: “If after this they do not obey, and do not return to me, I will apply seven afflictions to them for their sins.  If, however, after this they do not return, I will improve them.”†  All the things of God which seem to be bitter contribute toward education and remedies.  God is a doctor; God is a Father; he is a Master—and not a harsh one, but a gentle Master.  (Homily 1.2.3)

After reading a few pages of the first homily, I believe this will be worthwhile for understanding the book of Ezekiel.  I plan to post my thoughts upon completion, but if the beginning pages are any indication, I will be commending this book for the reader’s edification.


*  Psalm 6:2
†  Leviticus 26:27-28, apparently modified by Origen.

Continue in What You Have Learned and Firmly Believed

I will meditate on your precepts

and fix my eyes on your ways.

I will delight in your statutes;

I will not forget your word.  (Psalm 119:15-16)

[W]e should feel sufficiently constrained by the command of God alone, who solemnly commands in Deuteronomy 6:6ff that we should always meditate upon His precepts, sitting, walking, standing, lying down, and rising, and have them before our eyes and in our hands as a constant mark and sign.  Doubtless He did not so solemnly require and enjoin this without a purpose; but because He knows our danger and need, as well as the constant and furious assaults and temptations of devils, He wishes to warn, equip, and preserve us against them, as with a good armor against their fiery darts and with good medicine against their evil infection and suggestion.  Oh, what mad, senseless fools are we that, while we must ever live and dwell among such mighty enemies as the devils are, we nevertheless despise our weapons and defense, and are too lazy to look at or think of them!

Martin Luther, Large Catechism: Introduction 14-15

Great Authority Empowers Great Commission

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  (Matt 28:18-20)

This authority was given to one who had just been crucified, buried in a tomb, and afterwards had arisen.  Authority was given to him on both heaven and earth so that he who once reigned in heaven might also reign on earth through the faith of his believers.

First they teach all nations; then they baptize those they have taught with water, for the body is not able to receive the sacrament of baptism before the soul has received the truth of the faith.  They were baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit so that the three who are one in divinity might also be one in giving themselves.  The name of the Trinity is the name of the one God.

What a marvelous sequence this is.  He commanded the apostles first to teach all nations and then to baptize them in the sacrament of faith and then, after faith and baptism, to teach them to observe all that he had commanded.  Lest we think these commandments of little consequence or few in number, he added "all that I have commanded you," so that those who were to believe and be baptized in the Trinity would observe everything they had been taught.

Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 4.28:18-20

If It Was Easy, Everyone Would Do It

This past weekend, I had my Bible open to Matthew 7 to prepare for our Small Group. Verses 13-14 were being referenced in the video series, so I thought this was a good opportunity to build a couple questions for them.  As I was studying, a link to verse 12 jumped out. Here is the passage:

So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Enter by the narrow gate.  For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.  (Matt 7:12-14)

The text is often separated as you see I have here, with verse 12 coming at the end of the preceding paragraph or standing alone as a paragraph. Jesus uses this to summarizes his teaching from as early as 5:17, where he introduces his place in relation to the Law and interprets it correctly for his hearers.

Jesus then, having built his case concerning the Law, gives the imperative: enter by the narrow gate.  What is the that narrow gate?  I have heard preachers compare it to different things—Jesus himself, the cross, belief, etc.—and none of these is wrong.  They just give only a part.  Based on context, the narrow gate and ensuing way is the fullness of the Law and prophets, or in other words, all that is revealed in his word.  It is righteousness that can only be found in God.

Notice I did not say this was a verse about getting saved.  Certainly that is part of the matter, because you need to enter the narrow gate.  One must come by that way alone, but Jesus does not stop there.  He goes on to say that the way afterward is hard.  There is trouble, affliction, and pressure exerted on the person who enters by the narrow way to get off track.  Only by staying on the path once started can the believer hope to end well.  This is a major point of several NT epistles.

How do we remain on the path and not veer off?  Certainly not by virtue of our own strength.  We become faint of heart and can be too easily blown around by every wind of doctrine.  The only reliable alternative is to rest on the security of the soul's anchor: the promised of God in Christ Jesus (Heb 6:13-20).

Getting Vision in Focus

Our local assembly is struggling with what to do about our growth in numbers.  We are putting a strain on available square footage.  Four proposals have been put forth: build at a new site, refurbish an existing building, modify/add to the existing structure, and begin a new work with a percentage of the people.  Each of these options has advantages and disadvantages, and there are proponents for each course of action.

I sat in a meeting not long ago, listening to a presentation given by representatives of a firm who have experience in planning and building structures for church use.  Near the end of the discussion, the presenter said, "You don't have a vision.  What is your vision for the church?"  I have been thinking on that observation since then.

It is a valid question.
If any group does not know its purpose and where it needs to go in the future, how long will it survive?  Should it survive?  Our current purpose statement is posted on a web site and states that we are helping each one "move toward maturity in Christ," emphasizing four discipleship areas:

• •    WORSHIP GOD together each week.
• •    LOVE OTHERS within the framework of a small group.
• •    SERVE JOYFULLY in a ministry that strengthens the church family.
• •    SHARE CHRIST with others everywhere we go.

Each of these is valid within the congregate life of a local church.  Supporting texts are easy to come by.  Each prospective member is taught this and is asked to subscribe to it.  There is a plan—generic though it be—for maintaining existence, just not one for how to move forward from here.  Defining such a statement would be a good, telling exercise.  And this leads to my next point.

It is a dangerous question.
When church groups consider their future, the results are often disastrous because plans are based on desire rather than doctrine, replacing God's defined purpose for his church with their own agenda.  One does not need to search very far or long to stumble over a gathering that left their beliefs by the wayside months or years before in order to "reach out" and "be relevant."  God's Word contains an entire section recounting what happens when each person and group ignored God's express commandments and revelation, in order to do "what was right in his own eyes" (Judg 21:25).

Eric Andersen warns in a post that asking the question "What kind of church do we want to be?" should never be asked because we, as redeemed sinners, still have the old nature wreaking havoc.  The result will always (not sometimes, as I charitably stated above) be a disaster.  Whether or not one agrees with the assertion, his summary paragraph is useful for this discussion:

The challenge for the Church today is to resist entertaining questions that take the focus off of Jesus and so divide His Body.  Not all questions are good questions.  Self-serving questions do not edify the Church.  We must be careful to avoid the temptation to re-create the church after our own image and likeness.  The Church is not Her own, for She has been bought with a price (1 Corinthians 6:20).  She has been called out of the darkness not to bear witness to Herself, but to bear witness to Christ (1 Peter 2:9).  The words of John the Baptist could serve as a motto for every Christian and every church: “He must increase, but I must decrease,” (John 3:30).  As the blood-bought Bride of Christ (Acts 20:28), the Church is not ours to do with as we please.  Rather, the Church freely submits to Her Heavenly Bridegroom in all things (Ephesians 5:24), so that all blessing and honor and glory and might be to God and the Lamb, now and forever (Revelation 5:12—13).

Vision and purpose are not defined by what we want to be, or feel we need to be.  We are what the Lord and his word says we are.

It is a question needing an answer
With the constraint placed upon us that our existence and conduct be derived from a holy God's expectation of perfection and willingness through Jesus death, burial, and resurrection to accomplish atonement—he who was made "our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor 1:30)—there is need to take greatest care in crafting what might define the future of a local assembly.  The best wordsmiths ultimately fall short here in their attempts to lay a foundation on which might be forged the superstructure of church life.  I therefore offer the following vision statement as a humble gesture:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.  (Matt 28:19-20)

Are you thoroughly underwhelmed?  There are no Christian catchphrases, no missional mantra, no postmodern punditry.  Instead of a slogan meant to appeal, but being more maladroit than majestic, we have clear instruction delivered by the head of the church to those who obeyed this very command to the benefit of those who believed the proclamation of the gospel: they made disciples by baptizing them into Christ and teaching them all he had commanded.

Of first importance in a local gathering is not the formation of a vision intended to target a demographic or build in a particular section of a town or county.  These factors are ever changing in significance and weight.  The people will be unable to keep up.  The church throughout history never grew because of market research or location preference:  It grew by remaining faithful to what had been received.

This is not a diatribe against spending money on a structure in a particular locale.  This is a plea for Christians to not make decisions interpreted through current cultural norms or mystical divination attempts to determine God's will, nor through the more crass influences of creative marketing and poll numbers: rather let these be based on priorities drawn directly from their Bibles.

But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.  Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.  Only let us hold true to what we have attained.  (Phil 3:13-16)

Is the Church called to Evangelize or Disciple?

Tim Gombis has written a post asking an interesting question:

• In various settings over the years, I’ve heard evangelical leaders and pastors claim that the church’s main task is evangelism.  All sorts of evangelism initiatives have been kicked into gear based on this assumed obvious fact regarding the purpose of the church.… But is it obvious that evangelism is the main task of the church, or even a task of the church?

What makes this such a good question?  According to the author, the example of the apostles—Paul primarily—was

• that gospel proclamation leads to the establishment of churches.  Once they exist, they should set themselves to doing the sorts of things Paul elaborates in his letters.

He then goes on to give examples from Paul's epistles that his letters to the churches were for the building up of the body.  Certainly, the apostle does not discount or abandon evangelization, but that is not the main task.

If churches want to set something as a focus for their existence, let them use what the Lord Jesus commanded:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

Going is assumed, not as a mandate to for door-to-door or open-air evangelism, but as a lifestyle and openness of sharing Christ with others in our daily lives.

Perhaps by making Jesus' priority the assembly's priority, his church can work more effectively.

Hating Tradition on Principle

This section of the book is directed at youth ministry but is increasingly becoming standard fare as one generation fails to faithfully pass God's truth to the next.

It is claimed that in order to reach the young, we must imitate their world, speak their language, do what they do, and think what they think, which means jettisoning anything of the past not part of the context they are being sold at the mall and on YouTube.  Teaching them to embrace a culture of the past is out.  The only true rule is that by the systematic shedding of all rules and connection points with previous generations shall the next generation be able to learn the faith.  If anything is difficult, strange, or boring, it is anathema.  What matters is keeping their attention, and nothing grabs attention like breaking all the rules.

The results couldn't be more disastrous.… The faith once for all delivered to the saints has simply not been passed down to a super-majority of the upcoming generations, those very children who grew up under the super-tradition of getting rid of traditions.

Jonathan Fisk, Broken, 207

Are Christians the Antibody or the Contagion?

Bill Muehlenberg has written a good piece reminding Christians of how the world responds to Christ and his church.  He rightly reminds us that by virtue of believing and obeying the gospel we cause trouble because the world does not want to hear it, but most Christians go out of their way to dispel any confrontation with the world system.  He relates this biblical example that includes a great quote from J. M. Boice that explains how the apostle Paul and the early church were viewed.

In Acts 24 we read about Paul’s trial before Felix. In the opening five verses we finding this amazing discussion: “Five days later the high priest Ananias went down to Caesarea with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus, and they brought their charges against Paul before the governor When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: ‘We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation.  Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly.  We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world’.”

Everything there was nice and quiet, until this Christian troublemaker came along.  And he seemed to have the habit of causing riots wherever he went!  Even if we understand that this is not exactly a friendly witness giving testimony here, there is nonetheless heaps of truth here.

The unbelieving world could only see trouble when they encountered the followers of Jesus. Wherever they went they seemed to stir up trouble–even causing actual riots on a number of occasions.  But Paul and the disciples of Jesus must of necessity be seen as troublemakers, because of their revolutionary message.

I like what James Montgomery Boice has to say about this: “A literal translation of ‘troublemaker’ would be ‘pest,’ but it was stronger than what pest usually means for us today.  For us ‘pest’ usually means a nuisance.  But in earlier days of the English language, ‘pest’ meant ‘plague,’ an idea that we preserve in the stronger but somewhat archaic word ‘pestilence.’  What they were saying was that Paul was a plague of mammoth proportions.  He was an infectious disease.  He spread contagion.  Tertullus was suggesting that if Paul were set free, he would spread turmoil, disorder, and maybe even rebellion throughout the empire.

“This was the charge the Jewish rulers had brought against Jesus Christ at the time of his trial, and for the same reasons.  They knew that the Romans were not interested in religious matters but were intensely concerned about anything that might stir up trouble.  Before Pilate the Jews accused Jesus of making himself a king to rival Caesar, and here before Felix they accused Paul of causing turmoil.”

The question to answer is clear: are you considered a plague for spreading the truth and light of Christ, or are you trying to "live and let live" between the church and the world?

The Test of Relevantism

Mark Kalthoff has written an article defending the importance of liberal arts in a well-rounded education.  He makes the following observation concerning American academic culture.

We live in a culture of "relevantism."  Nearly every student, it seems, arrives on campus primed to ask, "How is this course, this assignment, this lecture relevant?  What can I do with it?  Tell me its immediate practical use."  Such questions arise because too many Americans know nothing of the old distinction between true education and mere training. *

The mentality of "relevantism" is not unique to academia but flourishes in the Church.  Pastors have recognized this shift and are increasingly shifting content from pulpit and classroom to deliver practical application useful for life in the church body or conducting oneself in the world.  In order to facilitate this change, doctrine is not given a priority except as it might bolster an application being presented.  Exegetical content give way to the thematic.  Categories of doctrine and theology become at best useful descriptions of what a local assembly or denomination holds as corporately true, though relegated to a status of sentimentality for individuals to pull out when opining about better past times but not able to immediately address pressing issues of the day.  The fruit of this culture is a group mentality that theology is boring and doctrine divides.  The overseers in a local body have a vested interest in resisting this wave of pragmatism and instead teaching the scriptures as they present themselves.  Doctrine and theology are not the bane of Christian life but vital instruments the Holy Spirit uses in us to effect godliness and repel false teaching.

Kalthoff warns against the attitude of immediate usefulness by reminding the reader that this is not the best gauge:

In view of this distinction between mere training and true education, I propose that submitting everything to a crass "relevantism test," the test that first asks, "What can I do with it?" is to ask the wrong question.  It is like asking about the uses for a newborn baby.  When immediate usefulness becomes the measure of value, we risk discarding things whose worth may be inestimable.  Further, it happens to be the case that things pursued for their own sake without regard to their practical utility quite often have the happy consequence of being useful in ways not originally perceived. †

Practical application has its place in Christian education, but we err when practicality is the totality of  education without establishing a foundation and building the superstructure within which the application is founded.  The usefulness or appropriateness of the basic instruction is often not immediately discernible.  Many years may go by before usefulness is realized. ‡  Both the instructor and student (or in Christian terms: disciple-maker and disciple) need to have the long view in mind.  As the information is assimilated, logical conclusions can be formed and used in appropriate times and seasons.

How does this instruction work itself out in the regular meetings of believers?  Ready-Fire-Aim tactics will not work.  Instruction needs to be consistent and committed, teaching the whole counsel of God and the plan of redemption.  Bible books should be covered as well as major theological sections (i.e., Christology, Hamartiology, Soteriology, et al) using a multi-year plan.  Will people balk at this approach and call out for something more "tangible" for today?  Yes, they will, but like any educator knows, the uneducated do not know what is essential, so understanding of the need must be integrated into the curriculum.

Someone once asked me if I want a church to be a mini-seminary.  No, I want believers in my assembly without correct doctrinal knowledge to properly handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15) and be firmly grounded, even if we have to teach "boring" things to get there.


* Mark A. Kalthoff, "The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge: Defending Classical Liberal Education from Melanchthon to Newman," Logia, Vol 21, No. 2, p. 51.
† Ibid.
‡ For instance, I now wish that more American citizens had paid attention to their instruction in American Government—or were even taught it.

What Is Your Local Church Proclaiming?

Larry Peters had a post on his blog that was rather good, but today it is gone.  Thankfully, I saved a copy.  Here is what I consider the meaty part.

For too many years we have been told to share our faith.  Our faith is not what our Lord calls us to share.  Our faith cannot be replicated either by action, reason, or argument.  We are not here to convince people by our faith to believe as we believe.  What we are called to share is the Word of God.  We are here to scatter the seed of the Word—in words and in actions.  It seems to me the problems in our church body stem less from people not getting out there than from a severe lack of confidence in the Word of God to do what God promises it will do.

We share about everything but the Word.  We host all sorts of self-interest groups.  We cater to a variety of tastes in music and worship.  We have Bible studies for those who want to listen and those who want to talk, for those who seek THE truth and those who are looking for MY truth.  We organize groups for people by age, interest, marital status, hobby, and need.  We have parking and handicap accessibility.  We have buildings that look like the mall and come complete with all the amenities.  What we lack is the courage and conviction to speak clearly and with confidence the Word of the Lord.  Jesus promises that where that Word is scattered, the Lord will bring forth the plant, the fruit, and gather the harvest (at the proper time).  But we have turned the scattering into a business proposition in which we market what we were called to preach and we preach everything people want to hear but that which the Lord has given us to say.

It would seem to me that the biggest problem we have in growing the Church is that we are too focused on the things we do and not focused enough on what God does.  We say over and over again the Word will not return to Him empty but will accomplish His purpose.  Then we adapt worship to fit personal taste and make our preaching and teaching fit the prevailing norms of communication technology.  We cast visions like seasoned fly fishermen and have professional missionals minding the business goals and keeping up the current stats.  But I am not so sure we actually speak clearly and faithfully the Word of the Lord—or if we do, whether that is central to what we do and who we are.

If there is a common malady affecting congregations, it is not getting out into the community but getting the Word out into the community.  All in all it does no matter how well known we are if we have nothing to say to those folks who know us.  It is not our caring that will save them or our winsome welcome but the Word spoken with courage, confidence, and conviction.  We do not need to see the results to know that God is at work when the words and deeds of His people proceed from and return to the message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Baptizing and Teaching—Disciplemaking Calls for Both

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  (Matthew 28:19-20)

This is one of the most familiar passages in the Bible with but one imperative—make disciples.  Yet in spite of this overt simplicity there seems to be the greatest difficulty in following the command.  Where does the difficulty lie?

The issue cannot be lack of authorization.  According to Jesus' own words above, all authority is his.  He then says go therefore (or possibly better translated therefore in your going) which acts as rhetorical device to say that the the authority vested in him is now being conferred on his followers.

The issue cannot be lack of clarity.  A sentence diagram shows the following:

Image from Issues, Etc. Journal, Fall 2011

Notice that there are two parts to the mandate:

        1) Baptizing in the name of the triune God
        2) Teaching all that Jesus has commanded

First, baptism is inextricably connected with salvation in relation to repentance and forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21), belief (Acts 8:12), reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17; 10:44-48), and identification with Christ (Acts 10:48; 19:5; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 1:13; Gal 3:27).  Teaching without baptism, then, serves only to make informed heathens, not Christians.  Without the baptismal waters, there can be no objective connection with Jesus our Lord.  Am I saying that someone who believes without baptism cannot be saved?  No.  I am making the case that those who state they believe and have an opportunity to be baptized in some manner but do not take it are likely not believers.

Second, there must be an active educational relationship to impart knowledge beginning with the rudiments of the gospel.  Maturity in Christ attained by the constant intake of God's word.  It works in us to make us competent and thoroughly equipped (2 Tim 3:16-17).  Baptism without teaching does no more than provide some identification with an ideal that is to be experienced with the intended aspiration of a lofty or laudable personal, subjective goal, thereby becoming self-fulfilled or self-condemned, depending on one's conscience.  Again, this person is not a Christian.  Am I saying this person is not a Christian if he understands and believes the gospel?  No.  I am saying that the gospel forms the very base of all that comes later.  If that person does not desire and/or strive to learn more, he is likely not a believer.

Up to this point, my complaint has been with the person on the receiving end, however there must be those who are actively baptizing and teaching.  For the person rightfully recognized to baptize to not do so is tantamount to unbelief.  Likewise, every person has opportunity to teach what God has so freely given in the revelation of himself and the fullness of redemption in Christ.  The incumbency on each Christian is to teach another of the manifold grace of God.  Am I saying the person not teaching another is not a Christian?  No.  I am saying that any baptized person who is able to communicate God's word and will not pass along its truth to another is at the very least lazy and probably not a believer.

With a clear command and pattern for action, why is it that so many American church groups minimize, if not abandon, what the early church held to be the only baptismal formula?  What was once embraced as required for full rights of fellowship and worship in the local assembly has been replaced with "Come and join the experience."  The Church Growth philosophy has been found to be too thin a model to form spiritual growth.  Some who promulgate this model have insisted it is the correct direction needing but a tweak here and there.  Others in the same camp have turned to the postmodern mantra of subjective individualism: in any gatherings of believers, do what helps you feel and live better.  Let's just get together to meet felt needs and show how to have better morals.  And each of the above meet weekly without addressing the underlying problem of sin and the work of a Savior for that sin.  Where will these man-made paths end?  "Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities!  All is vanity."  (Ec 1:2)

Some have already understood that the aforementioned paths have no true content and are searching for the pure milk and solid food in the sound teaching of scripture.  They are desiring to be disciples in the biblical sense.  How are they discovered?  Ask them.  I regularly do so in my own assembly concerning a person's spiritual intake.  Some do not realize their lack of growth and are satisfied with spiritual bonbons that do nothing but give false comfort.  Those that are concerned appreciate the inquiry and regularly reveal that they want another to help along the way.  Because there are not enough men and women taking on the mantle of teacher to these, they struggle in starts and fits before finding solid footing, often by leaving their church for another.
 With the need so great and the fields being white unto harvest, * let us plead for the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers.  For those laborers working on their own tasks rather than being engaged in what the Lord instructed, "cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded," (Jas 4:8) and make disciples the way Jesus instructed.

*  Notice I use this in relation to disciple-making and not evangelism only.  The distinction is important.

Didache, Discipleship, and Disjunction

Readers of my blog will have noticed my recent references to Thomas O'Loughlin's book, The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians.  The book is a "mixed bag."  The author accepts that the Gospel accounts, save Mark, were late first to early second century works while the "deutero-Pauline" epistles (Pastorals, et al) were second to third century.  As such, the Didache is thought to inform or be consistent with material that informed the writing of those works.  This calls into question much of his reasoning as he attempts to bring Didache together with the New Testament.  A straightforward reading of N.T. and Didache would demonstrate that the Church Fathers were correct in holding the former group as primary both in chronology and authority.

The benefit of this book is O'Loughlin's thesis that Didache was a training manual for the Christian community: it is a catechetical work for discipleship.  He notes the process from one phase to another in logical steps: basic presentation concerning the ways of life and death, taking in the moral teachings of Christ, understanding the character and identifying marks of the church, and looking for the promised return of the Lord.  He questions why the church has largely dismissed the need for thorough instruction of what comprised the relationship with God and His people.  To that end he has identified a weak spot in the life of the church.

What formerly had been a progression that occurred in any given person—proclamation of judgment and gospel, repentance, belief on Christ with accompanying baptism for the forgiveness of sins, assembling with others, instruction in God's word, nurture by an older believer—has now become truncated and compartmentalized.  Christians develop characteristics more akin to Deism or Gnosticism than being true followers in the Way.  What God had joined together man has torn asunder: evangelism from discipleship, baptism from belief, person of Christ from his Supper, sound doctrine from instruction, admonition and correction from training in righteousness.  Priority has shifted from the care of souls to care of the corporate entity.  The mindset driving this is, "How do we touch the most lives with limited resources?  How do we keep the organization together, moving strong and growing?"  That is a practical outlook, but it has little to do with the local church.  The correct questions should be, "What has God revealed in his word that needs to be done, and are we doing it according to his pattern?"

We would do well to evaluate both content and methodology of the local church against what the Lord has told us and be willing to look at what those early Christians did after the apostles died.  We do not want to directly imitate what as done, nor do we dare romanticize the purity of those first few centuries.  Instead, make a critical examination of their teaching and practice to better ground what we do in Christ's name.

Losing Sight of Discipleship

I have often lamented at the lack of discipleship in the church, especially in view of Christ's command to do that very thing in Matthew 28:19-20.  Thomas O'Loughlin raises the same question and points fingers at the early church for initially "dropping the ball."

A far more interesting question is why Christians abandoned the notion of mentoring new members  and the notion of there being need for an apprenticeship?… [A]s Christianity became more and more an accepted part of society, the notion that one needed an apprenticeship became less and less obvious—and what training there was became something that was more and more in the hands of religious experts rather than a common task of every member of the church.

Thomas O'Laughlin, The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians,

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 21.

Of course, the fix is not to blame those who lived 1800 years ago for our inaction.  Our call is to again be about the Father's business and make disciples.

Getting Away from the Program

Program!  Get your program!
I was first introduced to the concept of small groups some thirty years ago at a men's conference.  The organizers had brought in a group from California who had successfully established these in local churches with success.  This was to be a modern implementation of what the church experienced in the decades after Pentecost.  I was hooked and started such a group in my church with a few people.  It started well enough but lasted only as long as the first book we worked through.  I was somewhat disillusioned that it had not continued under its own inertia.  Over the decades between then and now, I have come to understand that my attempt, though well-intended, was more contrived than developed.

Since that time many programs I have been involved with in the assemblies of God's people have come and gone.  Programs initiated to involve people in the body or draw to the body generally have lasted but a few months at best.  Why was that?  Men and women who said they loved the Lord either did not get involved or abandoned the program early on.  At first I thought other Christians were just lazy or apathetic.  Later, I factored in the work and family schedules that many of the saints maintain.  I still wondered how God's children would not maintain consistency for a program designed to stimulate body life.  These initiatives were good for them.

Any of what I mention above could be accurate to some degree.  My own work schedule gets crazy during the Spring of the year.  And with one child, there was no way my wife and I could understand the logistics of a family with four or five children, though even they seemed to have enough time for the important matters of godly living and many special events at the church building.  But still something was missing.  There was a key ingredient that prevented what appeared to be good programs for spiritual growth from doing what was expected.  Eventually, the real reason hit me like a 2x4—men were leading and working; the Holy Spirit was not.

So what do I mean that "the Holy Spirit was not?"  Wasn't he involved?  I doubt it.  You see, the plans made and enacted were geared toward creating activity within the church to spur spiritual and numerical growth, and that artificially and outwardly.  God was completely unnecessary in the effort except as someone invoked as having the final authority and the ultimate answers of life.  These were our plans; we had prayed for God's blessing; and by golly, he better deliver or else.  Of course, he rarely did.  The spiritual victories that did come usually were something done on the side and not as part of the main function of the program, like a coincidence.  We should have learned.

Fast-forwarding to the present, I think I have learned.  Let's take the small group effort as an example.  When a church tries to organize a program of this type, there are some potential areas of great concern that I build on from an article by Brian Jones in The Christian Standard.

If you build it, they will come.  No, they will not.  And if they do, it is for the wrong reason.  Church leaders often have blinders on in matters of growth.  They want so badly for the church to increase spiritually and numerically, that they forget who is to be leading and growing the church.  It is Christ's body.  He is the head.  He causes the increase.  No amount of organization and implementation will cause this to happen.

Growth happens at the discretion of a sovereign Lord and according to his plan.  He knows what is best.  Revivals are exciting to be a part of and hear about, but they do not come because a great speaker is preaching the gospel or because of the impassioned pleas during an altar call.  Those spark emotions.  True revival comes from faithfully proclaiming the fullness of God's word.  The law condemns, and the gospel heals.

The fellowship is contrived and shallow.  Small groups are promoted with the idea that they are necessary for good fellowship.  While it is true that you get to know a subset of the church a little better, the forced nature of the groupings will keep people on their guard.  So as not to stir controversy, comments will be withheld.  Socializing revolve around the weather, politics, travel plans, or whatever keeps the conversation away from spiritual matters.  There is more chance of encourage each other of the St. Louis Cardinals' chances in the World Series than to encourage each other in Christ.

Fellowship comes as we are centered on Christ.  Understanding on a daily basis who we were as sinners undone who have been freely forgiven, we can more easily operate in a realm of humility open to those the Holy Spirit brings our way.  To those that day we fellowship with and minister to, and as we continue to interact, we share more of ourselves because we want to open up without sense of obligation.

The material does not center on scripture.  Group material is meager at best.  The questions are given to stimulate discussion rather than work out what God's word says and means.  Who cares if I identify more with the younger or older brother in the parable of the prodigal?  That is immaterial.  Tell me what Christ is saying first and foremost.

And why are the group studies usually topical?  They lead to greater discussion.  Recently, I sat through an entire hour session listening to others discuss what should and should not happen in regards to forgiveness.  For the entire time, nobody (leader included) sought to open their Bibles and state what holy writ instructed.  I tried but the leader kept the discussion moving to the next nuance so was unable to interject when appropriate.

The only way to keep centered on God's Word is to use it as the primary source.  This can be done directly through some method of systematic teaching through the Bible or doing so systematically using creeds and catechisms directing the learner's attention to it.

If you can read, you can lead.  A group leader who does not know his Bible makes for a disastrous small group.  Typically, the material is written so that anybody can pick up the discussion guide and rattle off the questions.  But what happens when the question is unbiblical or the discussion moves into uncharted waters?  How does the leader navigate this?  The discussion leader is in the position of a teacher, and with that comes a great responsibility.  (James 3:1)

Now, get with the program
If you think by now that I might be opposed to small groups or any program whatever, you would be wrong.  The problem is that those which are correctly functioning seem as scarce as hen's teeth because the church at-large has neglected its duty.  What is the purpose of the church?  What is the purpose of the individual member?  Answer these questions biblically, and programs take care of themselves.  They become something we do not as a well-organized, sterile clinical study but as a by-product of Christ-centered body life.

Wearing Ink: Inside or Outside?

Just recently I became aware of a promotion by City Church of Anaheim, CA to get visitors in the door.  Twelve congregants with the pastor received tattoos because of a promise made for reaching a goal.  This article is three months old, but it goes squarely to a problem found in the church of North America.  We're all about gimmicks.  The preponderance of attention gets directed to the flashy and cutting-edge groups.  I wonder what would have happened if the thirteen that received tattoos had instead turned their attention to making disciples of all nations.^§

But who am I kidding?  Tattoos require much less discomfort and commitment.


§ I am not opposed to tattoos.  I am opposed to them as gimmicks taking the place of discipleship.