I think what our church needs is to be willing to wrestle through stages of life with one another so that failing with one another is acceptable and forgiving one another is a routine part of our life.  The point being that often times we need the accountability of others to fulfill the commands of Christ and there is no better way than to do them together.  I can look back and see how many different Christians modeled either love, boldness, zeal, or something else that I lacked and gave me the courage and strength to obey Christ because I saw them do it.  Our long lost brother Aaron Menikoff (see Atlanta’s Who’s Who) was a great model for me over the past few years.  I thought about him in a particular situation Ifound myself in recently.  We had a single person visiting our church and he/she wanted to join but was concerned about how few singles their were in our church.  I asked myself, what would Aaron do in this situation.  I actually sat this person down and explained to him/her that we needed the singles to be brave enough to join so others would have someone to join with.   I would have never done that 2 years ago, and many are saying I shouldn’t have done it then.  

Aaron and I never met in any official capacity and had no organized structure for our discipleship.  It was, however, the a very influential relationship for me because we simply lived life together and I got to watch him do things I lacked the courage to do.  So what am I saying?  Aaron, you complete me.  

Our lives are busy and the idea of sitting down to coffee weekly with a Joe or June in light of all our other commitments seems too difficult. Therefore, I propose we think about discipleship as more informal which will require being more transparent and actively doing something for the kingdom together.  This would be inviting others to be in your home with you while you go through your routine, inviting to go run errands with you, and most of all, asking others to come with you when you are going to go share the gospel or care for another brother or sister.  The latter is where I want to give a strong challenge to our members. Fulfill the great commission together.  I believe this will prove to be the most blessed discipleship relationship you could have.

1. Reform is easier in a small church than in a large one.

2. Do what Christians do – love.

3. Make yourself a help, not a problem, to your church’s leader.

4. Aspire to leadership.

5. Have conversations with people – lots of them.

6. Train other leaders.  Aim for majorities.

7. Show up to the meeting with a completed idea.  Then let go of it.

8. Decide what’s crucial.  Be willing to compromise on the rest.

9. Talk alot with those most opposed.  Make a good-faith effort to alleviate their concerns.

The past two months have marked a big change in 3ABC’s leadership with the resignation of three elders (Left to Right: Jeremy Yong, Greg Gilbert, Aaron Menikoff).  This was a bitter sweet moment as we said good-bye to these beloved brothers who have been called to serve other churches full-time.  Jeremy will be serving as Director of Ministries at church in Dubai City in the UAE.  Greg is going on staff as an Associate Pastor/Church Planter at Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C..  In partnership and with the support of CHBC, he will plant a church in Annapolis, MD, Lord willing, in a few years.  Aaron left at the end of May and has been serving as the senior pastor of Mount Vernon Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA.  We thank God for the years these brothers served formally and informally and we look forward in anticipation to how God will use their gifts else where.

This parting does, however, leave me with an opportunity to reflect on how relational unity was and can be fostered among elders.  Needless to say, doctrinal unity and like-mindedness is absolutely essential for an effective elder board and should not be taken for granted.  But, unfortunately, what often divides leaders are personality differences and conflicts.  So here are a couple of practical ways to foster relational unity.

First, be regular disciplers of one another.  It’s easy for leaders to spend nearly all their time discussing church matters and not their personal lives.  In the long run that can lead to unnecessary conflict and disagreement because the time hasn’t been taken to care for one another.  It is much easier to have fruitful discussion about the church’s direction when you know that the brothers around the table have a deep love and care for your spiritual well-being; that they have taken the time and energy to invest in you.  One of the practical ways I do this is by having intentional conversations with the elder I ride with to a meeting.  (If that’s Wheeler, it’s pretty short because of how fast we’re going.  JK, Wheels!)

Second, become close friends.  That may sound too simple, but I promise you that it works.  Some of my closest friends at church and in life are the other elders.  You do this by going on couple dates and vacations.  Have dinners together regularly.  Encourage friendship among your kids.  We take a weekend retreat each year.  We use that time to discuss the church’s future and the larger items we can’t fit into an elders meeting.  But it is also a great opportunity to hang out and laugh together.  At one of our lunches last year we discussed who was the most talkitive and in the best shape.  Plenty of laughs to go around at that.  Another fun way we share laughs is by keeping a “quote bank.”  This is a collection of sayings from our meetings that are priceless. You can do whatever you want.  The point is that the elders must make an effort to become good friends.

(In my next post, I’ll give some practical advice on what the congregation should be looking for when they consider future elders.)

If you’re like me, part of you may just laugh when you hear of such actions.  In the end, however, it is no laughing matter because it brings up a host of questions.  For example, did the manufacturers of the sign mean mankind in general when they wrote “men working”?  It’s doubtful given the nature of the job where such signs are normally found.  And, yes, I’m being partly playful here.  Nonetheless, such a question probably could be raised when deciding a formal complainant.

More importantly though, at what point does the wrongful “discrimination” and rightful “inclusion” end?  At the end of the day, who will decide what is and is not offensive?  Who sets the standard for what is and is not discriminatory?  The standard, as illustrated in this case, is set by the defended party.  Good brought it to the city’s attention that she had been offended and working women were being discriminated against.  Thus, it was Good’s standard that was set and had to be decided on by the city.  This goes to illustrate just how powerful the individual’s “rights” have become in our culture.  If one person is offended then he or she has the “right” to file whatever form of complaint he or she deems suitable.  (David Wells notes this in The Courage To Be Protestant.)

One of the more obvious questions and particularly important ones to the church is at what point can we use “cultural artifacts” (to use one of Dr. Mohler’s terms) to make gender distinctions?  Can we ever use anything to distinguish our God-given gender roles?  If Good can make a case for “men working” signs then who’s to stop someone from filing suit against the church for saying, “In accordance with 1 Timothy 2:12 and 3:2, women shall not serve as Elders” (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 4 of TABC’s Constitution)?  This is not a question for a later generation.  It is one that is already being taken up now.

I’ll grant there is some relevance in the accusation that we’ve misunderstood Paul because of his interpreters, namely Luther and Augustine. In other words, the NPP says we’ve got Paul all wrong because we’ve spent too much time reading Piper, who reads Edwards, who read Luther, who read Augustine. Okay, now they’re getting a little closer to home. In addition, they say it is misleading to claim that all Jews in the first-century believed in a works-righteousness religion. That too is an accusation made of traditionally reformed people like myself. But even if those are relevant accusations, when was the last time you found church members discussing them after the evening service? Where’s the cool attraction in that for young people?

My point in all of that is to say the NPP discussion can be irrelevant to most congregations. (I emphasize “can” because any Christian or pastor that’s dealt with an errant member on this issue or some variation of it knows by experience its relevance.) So where is the NPP’s relevance for the rest of us?

I think it’s in the theological commonality with emergent theology, namely the emphasis on the gospel being about Jesus’ lordship, victorious kingdom, and inclusive community to the exclusion of a guilty sinner’s salvation from God’s wrath through Jesus’ substitutionary death and imputed righteousness. That’s the line, albeit perforated, connecting the NPP and Emergent. They use different cups to drink from the same theological well. They both talk about the traditional understanding of the gospel and justification being too small or individualistic. It’s “not about how someone gets saved.” Justification is not about “soteriology but ecclesiology.” Instead, they argue, it’s about the story of the Bible. It’s about God’s solution to Israel’s abiding problem – the exile – and his inclusion of the Gentiles. The gospel is much larger and cosmic in scope than the traditional church has affirmed. It’s about God overcoming all the sin and evil wrought by the Fall and not about individual sinners being guilty before God. Furthermore, they both conclude with with the same implications – social restoration. (If you want resources, read Brian McLaren’s The New Kind of Christian and N.T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?)

Well, it’s here in the theological similarity that you find its relevance. It’s a similar theological drink being passed around in different cups. You may be a in a reformed church and have to deal with theological issues that are explicitly labeled NPP or some variation. You may be in a church that has no reformed roots at all but have to deal with matters from the growing popularity of Emergent theology. But no matter what church you’re in the issues will have alot in common. And that common tread is to reconceive and redefine the gospel in different terms.

The second weakness was the vanishing of local churches. It became a matter of “personal choice” for whether or not the core principles needed to be lived out “primarily in an ecclesiastical context.” Thus, there was the rise of parachurch ministries, which lived to “strengthen the life of the churches” in the beginning. Since then, however, evangelicals have thought of their faith in “para” terms and apart from the church (10). This attitudinal shift coupled with the rise of church “marketers” resulted in many churches disappearing and becoming “entirely parachurch in nature! (11).

Wells concludes that this “disappearing trick would never have been possible if evangelicals were still thinking in doctrinal terms.” He continued:

The truth is that without a biblical understanding of why God instituted it, the church easily becomes a liablility in a market where it competes only with the greatest of difficulty against religious fare available in the conveniences of one’s living room and in a culture bent on distraction and entertainment. Few demands are made by television preachers, or on borrowed DVDs, and every pitch for a financial contribution is subject to death by the mute button. That cannot be said of the preacher in a church! This conquest by the market, accomplished silently and without any fanfare, has not only greatly diminished the church but, one has to say, has also greatly diminshed what it means to be a Christian believer (11).

Okay, someone could argue that’s a bit unfair. The covenant doesn’t rightly meet the terms and conditions of a traditionally-defined “vision statement”. Furthermore, it fails to answer the question of what’s so wrong with a vision statement? In response, let me point you to an blog post by Richard Phillips to better answer that question. He has “Some Thoughts on Church ‘Visions’ “ that are well worth reading. Here’s his conclusion (emphasis added):

Church visioning is a powerful tool that can help make leaders much more effective. But since it necessarily focuses on things man can achieve, it has a dangerous tendency to secularize the church. Therefore, in my opinion, church visioning is probably a good idea only for churches that are strongly established with an ordinary means of grace emphasis, but who need to pay more attention to their missional context. Also, I would suggest that a visioning process should be conducted only periodically so as to set some longer term trajectories for ministry aspirations. The document should be kept ready so as to offer its analysis to future decision-making (hiring decisions, budget priorities, etc.), and then the church should continue to focus on its God-given mission of serving the Kingdom of Christ through the God-given strategy of Word, sacrament, and prayer, with biblically-defined elders and pastors serving a biblically-shaped church. (See 2 Cor. 10:3-4, and 1 Cor. 1:21-2:2).

If you are a leader in your church and thinking about reforming then this may be a conversation worth having with other leaders.

(In reverse order) Notice, first, that Paul says to “keep a close watch…on the teaching.” Unfortunately, when you ask many Christians, “What is the gospel?”, you receive a piecemealed answer. There is a little truth here and a little truth there but often no coherent framework or biblical story line that summarizes the good news. For example, we are told Jesus died on the cross for sins but there is no explanation of sin or its penalty. If there is, it’s often limited to whether or not we’ve obeyed a moral law. I could go on with examples. Nonetheless, this type of limited understanding and presentation is problematic, and here’s why.

Think of your understanding of the gospel as a sieve. The tighter meshed it is the better it is for sifting out impurities. The wider the mesh the more impurities will fall through. Thus, a piecemealed understanding of the gospel is like a sieve with a minimal number of crossed wires and a weak frame. It’s not going to do alot of good in sorting out what is true from what is false, especially when fallacies come cleverly disguised. Our lives should be spent adding to and tightening the mesh. But many of us don’t even have a sturdy frame. And for the sake of space, let me give you the one Greg mentioned Sunday: God, man, Christ, response. Learn to summarize, present, and assess the gospel with those markers. (Here is a nice summary.)

Second, Paul instructs Timothy to watch his life. In all honesty, right doctrine isn’t half as difficult as right living. As we, however, examine Scripture we find over and over again that right belief is always coupled with right living. The latter always indicates and reinforces the validity of the former. In a few verses prior, Paul said, “(T)rain yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance…Command and teach these things…set the example” (vv. 7-9, 11-12). Later on he wrote, “Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness” (1 Tim. 6:11). Whereas if you read about false teachers, you’ll find, though not always, their identity is manifested by their ungodly behavior (1 Tim. 6:3-5).

To conclude, what’s at stake if we and our churches don’t watch our lives and doctrine? What’s on the line if we are enticed and lured by well-marketed and well-packaged false gospels? Our eternal lives. Notice the end of verse 16. “Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” Jesus illustrated it this way: “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:19-20).

And yet we shouldn’t be surprised by such deceptive means because Scripture forewarns us of their secretive nature in promoting false teaching and ungodly behavior. For example, 2 Peter 2:1 says, “But false prophets…will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying the Master who brought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” Similarly, Jude wrote, “For certain people have crept in unnoticed…ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). Paul exhorted Timothy to “Keep a close watch on your (life) and on the teaching” (1 Tim. 4:12) and to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Tim. 6:12) because false teachers were teaching a “different doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3, 6:3). Furthermore, Christ is the good Shepherd and we are his sheep, but Jesus warned that “false prophets (will) come in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15). And on the “Last Day…many will come in (Jesus’) name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray” (Matt. 24:5).

In summary, they come cleverly disguised as God’s people. They are easily mistaken as being in the church. They don’t have obnoxious neon lights and sing corny jingles announcing their false identity. Furthermore, they come under the pretense of teaching God’s true revelation. Their doctrine has vague undefined similarity to the truth. And yet when it’s all stripped away you find something completely different. You find wolves leading themselves and their hearers to certain destruction. So what do you do? How do you equip yourself and your church to not be deceived and lured away by well-marketed and well-packaged false gospels? That’s what I’ll answer next.

1) Spirit-filled teaching and reception of God’s Word.
2) Conversions through the ministry of our church. “We don’t want to just shuffle the Kingdom of God. We want to see it grow.”
3) Purity and unity in our corporate life.

In preparation for Sunday, I’m rereading a book by Erik Routley entitled Church Music and Theology. The first time I read the quote (post’s title) I found it humorous. While Routley makes some valid points about using music to manipulate, etc., he had his own issues too.

(HT: Owen Strachan)

The split stems from the ongoing battle within the Episcopal Church regarding the Bible’s authority, particularly as it relates to homosexuality.  “The church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point,” said Bishop John David Schofield of San Joaquin to the diocesan convention on Friday, “but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss.”

Let me encourage you to take the time to read this article and to keep an eye on the Episcopal Church.  Church history is chalked full of moments such as this.  In addition, it highlights the truth that the church of Jesus Christ will stand or fall on the Bible’s authority. 

(You can also find information on the diocese’s website.) 

As I said in remarks Sunday evening, I am convinced that Kurt is the right man to lead our church. Handing the church over to someone who has not been a member with us, is like handing over a daughter to some dude in marriage. Right now I can’t imagine there will ever be a man worthy of marrying my daughter. I’ve been told that when the time comes for a daughter to marry, most of the time you’re OK with him. In the case of handing the church over to Kurt, I’m more than OK. We are very blessed that he should be with us.

To understand the range and differences among American Christians, Christianity Today International (publisher of Leadership) recently partnered with Zondervan Publishers to commission Knowledge Networks to conduct attitudinal and behavioral research of U.S. Christians. In September 2006, more than 1,000 self-identified Christians 18 years of age and older were surveyed on their religious beliefs and practices. The results reveal a number of significant differences…In fact, portraits of five distinct segments emerged from the study. We have named them Active, Professing, Liturgical, Private, and Cultural Christians.

The article then went on to say “three critical issues emerged” for church leadership as a result of the survey. They were…

• The local church is no longer considered the only outlet for spiritual growth.
• Churches must develop relational- and community-oriented outreach.
• Lay people have to be better equipped to be God’s ambassador.

I think these are three issues we must regularly address.

1. Evangelism methods are often controversial and continually being revised. This is just the reality we live in. Billy Graham is nearing the end of his life and thousands, maybe millions, of people have been affected by his ministry. But his methods weren’t sheltered from criticisms and controversies. The same could be said of the endless list of personal evangelism tracts and methods. There may be many reasons why criticism and controversy is inherent to evangelism methodology. For example, it can be attributed partly to the fact that Scripture just isn’t very specific about how one ought to fulfill the Great Commission. The command is very clear but the method isn’t. The apostles’ example is descriptive but not entirely prescriptive. Therefore, we should not be surprised by this article. I’m not saying the new trend is right or wrong. I’m just saying that given the pattern of the last half century and the lack of Scripture’s specificity then one ought not be taken aback by evangelism that would be called “new” and “cutting edge.”

2. Church planting and church reform should go hand-in-hand. This article never talks about church reform per se, but it does mention the difference between “established” and “newly planted churches. ” Here’s the logic: According to the research, most churches stop looking out after about 15 years; thus, they stop growing. Church plants, however, are looking out; thus, they are growing at a faster rate. Churches, therefore, need to plant churches in order to reach out. The article then went on to describe the similarities between domestic planting and overseas planting.

Well, I’m all for planting churches. But what about the thousands of dwindling churches that are planted but need reforming and reviving? What about the thousands of seemingly unattractive churches that have buildings and membership but need strong leadership and biblical preaching to become once again a bright light? Can those churches be a means of “cutting edge” evangelism? I think they should be and by God’s grace can be.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a false assumption that church reform is to the exclusion of evangelism. In other words, reform looks “in” and planting looks “out.” When in reality, reform looks inward and outward. Just take expositional preaching, the most essential component of reform, as an example.

Expositional preaching reorients a church’s worldview, priorities, purpose, and the list could go on. The Holy Spirit transforms lives through the preaching of God’s word. That transformation causes churches and Christians to be “salt” and “light.” In addition, they mature in brotherly love so that all men know they are Christ’s disciples by their love for one another.

I’m no church researcher. I don’t study demographics and church statics. But one doesn’t have to be in order to observe the thousands of churches across this nation that are regularly closing their doors; many of which are in areas considered to be “gospel priorities” (We love you, Bruce and now Kurt!). NAMB’s planting rate is 4-5 churches per day. I could only imagine that the closing rate is equal to if not greater than. So shouldn’t we strike an evangelistic balance? I believe that reformers can learn from planters and vice versa. Therefore, the two can actually find a way walk hand-in-hand as the “new” evangelism.

Mention the word “evangelism” and what comes to mind? Fifty years ago it would be evangelism crusades such as the Billy Graham Crusades. Thirty years ago programs like “Evangelism Explosion” and “Four Spiritual Laws” would come to mind in personal evangelism. Well, that was fifty and thirty years ago. Today there are fewer and fewer crusades and many churches are still teaching personal evangelism. But the new “cutting edge” evangelism is church planting.

This new or, depending on your perspective, old form of evangelism stems from a few things. First, many churches with younger leadership are frustrated with the lack of growth from current methodologies. Second, church planting networks like Acts 29 Network are rethinking biblical evangelism and its methods. They see church planting as essential to the local church’s nature. Third, researchers have found a trend that new churches are growing at a faster conversion rate than older churches. The trend is for churches to look “inward” instead of “outward” after about 15 years. Whereas church plants have to look outward in order to survive.

And yet church planting doesn’t look the same as it did in the second half of the 20th century. Many church planters are targeting immigrants, “which means adjusting church traditions to diverse ethnic cultures.” Furthermore, it produces “niche audiences.” The SBC’s NAMB effort in California is a prime example. And this isn’t a manufacturing of diversity. It simply reflects the “neighborhood’s” changing nature. Emerging church plant efforts have been extremely successful because of their “unconventional” and “non-institutional spirit” and methodologies.

Church planters also have a different perspective than their predecessors. America is seen as a “mission field” with the same barriers as those overseas – “religion, language, tribe, caste, and socioeconomic status.” Church planters are learning from missionaries overseas and using their methods to penetrate the culture with the gospel and provide places for disciples to mature. Thus, planters are domestic missionaries with the “same sociological perspective” as their overseas counterparts.

In addition, they believe it’s a faulty assumption that the U.S. is a post-Christian nation. It’s half-Christian and half post-Christian. And these new “missionaries” are penetrating the “post-Christian pockets.” Although some new churches fail, all face the same “demographic” difficulties. And it’s here where the “entrepreneurial, independent, and stubborn personalities” that mark the “new” missionaries persevere in obedience to the Great Commission. Therefore, “a church that seeks to obey the Great Commission will keep sending out missionaries” even if that means “they never leave home.”

Immediately following my acceptance into membership nearly 6 years ago, I was standing by the piano downstairs talking to Bruce and expressing my thankfulness and eagerness to be involved. He too was thankful and said something I’ll never forget. He said, “Your main ministry is the ministry of presence. There’s not much for you to actively do but to show up.” (Then he gave me that look like “Was that what you were expecting to hear?”) Mind you, the church was alot different then and the church’s future was contingent on such advice. But those words are timeless and transcend all contexts. You fight against unbelief and help others do the same as you regularly spur one another on to greater maturity in Christ. And you do that primarily by attending the church’s main gatherings together.

In additional to Brad’s suggestions, I would add that being present with the church routinely is a great aid to preserving one’s faith. Also, it’s essential to pray that God would continue to give us the grace to believe. As Josh M. mentioned last night, we should all be like the father who cried out, “I believe, help my unbelief.”

So what can we do to prevent such a thing from happening? What are some small steps we can take when we realize we are on a slippery slope? Well, let me try to speak as elder that has been charged with shepherding God’s flock.

1. Talk to someone immediately. This is probably the most important step. But unfortunately, it is too often neglected. As soon as you find yourself deeply struggling with a particular sin, questioning your church’s Statement of Faith (SoF), or find yourself enticed by a some teaching outside your SoF, go to someone immediately and talk to them. That may be another member, elder, or pastor. If it’s been said once, it’s been said hundreds of times by the elders of this church – “Why didn’t he or she say something earlier? Why are we just finding out about this?”

A delay in talking to someone usually indicates a couple of things. First, it indicates a misunderstanding of church membership and it’s benefits. Second, it shows the naivety in thinking you can handle “it”, whatever “it” may be, by yourself. I recognize in my own sinful heart the temptation to keep silent. But as an elder, I can’t emphasis enough the value of immediately talking to someone despite any awkwardness or embarrassment you may experience.

2. Realize this is a perilous slope. If you can be tempted to be silent then you can also be tempted to down play the seriousness of your situation. Spiritually speaking, sin disorients our senses. We think we have 20/20 vision when in reality we are blind. Apathy and indifference are two of our biggest spiritual enemies. They are not a help to nor an indicator of spiritual life. They will only deceive you into thinking that what you are believing, doing, or not doing aren’t serious nor urgent. In addition, we can be tempted to excuse our sin because of our circumstances. For example, I may excuse my neglect of properly leading and caring my wife to my “busy” circumstances. I may be busy but it doesn’t excuse me of my responsibilities.

Thus, in those moments of excuse, indifference, and apathy, you need a dose of spiritually awakening. You need to be shaken by the Holy Spirit through the word of God and counsel of others to see the danger you’re in.

Speaking as an elder, I believe these are two ways one can gain traction when they find themselves on the slippery slope of unbelief. Is there anything you guys would add?

This is why I love the biblical image of membership being a building (1 Cor. 3.9; 2 Cor. 6.16; Eph. 2:21; 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Pet. 2.5). As bricks in this building we have to help support and rest on one another. You have to inconvenience yourself because the spiritual well-being of the brick above you depends on it.

And with regard to Keith’s need for a sidekick, you need to write a personal ad. For example,

Athletic, intelligent MWM ISO, suitable companion for fun, laughs, etc. — be Tom to my Jerry, W. E. Coyote to my Roadrunner, etc.

OR you could just create a fictitious sidekick like they do on the Ref 21 blog. I’m thinking you might like a friend named Mr. I. M. Needy, Herr E. Tick, etc. It could be so much fun.

Where 3ABC is distinct is that we actually come back to church in the evening to end the day in a similar way. It’s fast becoming a relic for a church to have any Sunday evening activity. I would not say that it is required for a church to be considered faithful, but it is beneficial. We find that it has been very helpful for the spiritual nurture of the church and for our worship to gather again on Sunday evenings. What do we do? We gather to sing, to pray for needs of the church and beyond, and to hear again from God’s Word. The evening text we meditate on is usually from the opposite testament than the one we studied in the morning – e.g. NT in the a.m. means we would hear from the O.T. at night — but both texts are always on a similar theological theme.

We prioritize this evening service in our corporate life over other options like one-on-one discipleship, home groups, etc., because we believe that the corporate identity of the church needs to be prioritized and nurtured. As you can see, we value those things (home groups, etc.) too, but the purpose of the corporate life of the church isn’t first to make those other things possible. Those other benefits grow from a healthy and vibrant corporate church life. You’re not part of a family so you can have one close brother or sister — the gift of family life, biological or spiritual, is so much more than that one close relationship.

Bruce,

I just read the 3rd blog where you wrote about elders’ meetings.  I just wanted to agree with everything you said.  It is very encouraging to see the elders work through tough issues and see how y’all love the church.  Plus, the food is awesome.  Thank you for your generosity.

One of our goals as a church is to mentor and train elders. We are small and don’t have a lot of formal mechanisms for this yet. One thing that we do is to invite non-elders to our elders’ meetings. Our elders’ meetings can be rather lengthy, and at times even downright exciting. Keith may start pontificating about the Trinity for example, or he may throw my kids toys around. (There is also usually lots of coffee and dessert prepared by my wife.) A few months ago we decided that inviting non-elders to selected portions of our meetings would be a simple way to mentor young men and to help train those who may be preparing for full-time ministry. We thought at first that it would only be Seminary students who were interested in coming. The reality is that we have had many U of L students come also. The conclusion for all those non-elders who’ve come is that this has been one of the most insightful and helpful things for them in understanding how elders practically lead and shepherd the church. It’s small, and it’s simple, but it helps us fulfill what we see as our responsibility to help train future leaders of the church.

What was affirmed in the document? In short, through a series of five Q&As the document, which was ratified by the pope, reaffirmed what the Vatican II Council had previously stated regarding the doctrine of the church – The true “Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.” (“Subsists” is the key word.) Here’s the Congregation quoting the Vatican II Council:

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.”

Regarding other churches and ecclesiastical communities, the Congregation didn’t say they were of no value. They actually are “instruments of salvation.”

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church” (my emphasis added).

There’s much that could be said about this reaffirmation. But as an evangelical Christian I have to say that I appreciate it. I think this is a positive move, not because I believe in the primacy of the RCC or papal authority. Nor do I agree with Rome that Protestant churches aren’t “churches in the proper sense” because they “don’t enjoy apostolic succession in the sacramental Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church.” This is another one of the Reformational distinctions: a true church is constituted by a body of believers where there is the right preaching of the word of God and the right administration of the sacraments. Thus, there’s not much I agree with in this document.

My appreciation, however, derives from the fact that this reaffirmation highlights Protestant and Catholic distinctions that I think have been lost in the fog of ecumenical movements. Only this time they are being made from a Catholic vantage point, a view we’re not used to seeing. (You can find these essential distinctions from a Protestant standpoint over at Reformation21 in Carl Trueman’s latest article.)

Part of the Vatican’s motivation for the document was to remove some of the ecumenical fog. Therefore, it’s not surprising that most criticism has come from proponents of ecumenical outreach; criticisms such as “We pray for the day that the Roman Catholic Church moves beyond exclusivist claims so that we can further the cause of Christian unity for which our Lord Jesus Christ prayed – so that the world may believe (John 17: 21)” (The World Alliance of Reformed Churches). It’s those types of statement that give me appreciation for the RCC’s reaffirmaion.

(You guys may disagree, and John 17 is to be dealt with. What do ya think? Keith, be nice. Oh yeah, I know I have two big conversations going at once.)

In unitying, they intend to “to speak and work together to create an authentic and genuine prophetic Baptist voice in these complex times.” One of their initial projects will be to form a “national Islamic-Baptist dialogue to improve relations with Muslims.” One of their main organizers, Bill Underwood, president of Mercer University in Atlanta, said, “We really haven’t seen this kind of unity in Baptist life since the early 19th century.”

Unfortunately, these two groups continue to buy into the false assumption that true unity comes at cost of “matters of theology,” as Underwood stated. True “unity” and “common ground” are found in sound doctrine and not at the cost of it.

I have to say it’s a topic I often revisit given my situation. I think I could make that “if” a positive one. Just look at my circumstances. Financially, my family could afford it. We’re already here in Lville, so we wouldn’t be relocating. I already have good study habits from my undergrad; thus, it would make for a smooth transition allowing me to complete the program faster. The only downside is the sacrifice of time and emotion my family would have to make. And I don’t down play how big a sacrifice that is, especially for my wife and girls. Do I, therefore, meet the qualification of “if the possiblity is present?”

Now I want to make one distinction before I continue. My decision is whether or not to do an MDiv., not the Ph.D. And I do believe the MDiv. is more essential to a pastor’s education than the Ph.D. Thus, I would highly encourage a pastor to do an MDiv., maybe even make that “if” a reality. There’s more that could be said, but I’ll leave it there.

But if we’re speaking generally, I have to say formal education merely for the sake of formal education, even for a pastor, may not be the wisest decision. Keith may be getting at what is most important in a pastor’s education, and that is the tools for learning. I don’t think I could be an effective elder if I weren’t equipped with the proper tools. (Some of this harkens back to Dorothy Sayers’ The Lost Tools of Learning). And I wouldn’t have those tools were it not for Boyce or some equivalent education/training. Okay, one may be exposed to certain works and theological categories in his formal education he may not have otherwise. Nevertheless, that exposure is no substitute for the rigorous study a pastor is called to in his sermon preparation.