In Defense of Theology

I have observed a disturbing trend lately where Evangelical Christians show distain towards the use of Theological categories, especially those that have emerged through the discipline of Systematic Theology and/or confessional traditions. I regularly hear lay people and vocational ministers alike making the same argument: namely, that Christianity’s biggest problem is that we have imposed a Theological system on the text of Scripture rather than allowing our conclusions to come from the text itself. I am not convinced these claims are warranted.

 

I am not the person to engage this issue on a high level, but I do want to comment on how such misguided remarks are harmful for the layperson and the minister. I believe we must press our people to understand, adopt, and use historically useful Theological terminology and avoid crude biblicism: the kind of approach to doctrinal discussion that says, “screw words and what they’ve historically meant, I only care about the specific words that the Bible uses (or at least whatever words the translation(s) I use have chosen)”.

 

Crude Biblicism and Antipathy towards History

Today, Evangelical Christians are astoundingly ignorant of their history. I recently listened to a “debate” between a Lutheran and an exteme charismatic healer who referred to the difference between Trinitarianism and modalism as an abstract debate about secondary issues. Equally embarrassing is the amount of positivity from conservative Evangelicals towards the current “bishop” of Rome. Understanding Theological categories and how they have been formulated and defended links us with our history. Rejecting Theology in hopes of being purely "Biblical" ensures that we repeat the mistakes of our past.

 

For example, understanding the Trinity forces you to see a time in history where almost everyone in the visible church was wrong. It forces you to see a time where people were saying, “let’s not use terminology, let’s just use Scripture”, and they were doing it to defend heresy. That’s something that’s happening far too often today. It doesn’t have to be happening. But we often don’t see the problem because we don’t know our history. Sharing the language of those who have gone before us can help us revisit that history so that we can save ourselves from future errors.

 

Crude Biblicism and Naïveté

Too many today believe that the reason why we misunderstand the Bible is because we have carefully-formed theological systems. That is emphatically not our biggest problem. We all have doctrinal systems. The problem comes when believers are convinced that it’s dangerous to sit down and write them down. They’re ignorant of what they really believe because they’ve been told to “just believe the Bible”. A well-informed Presbyterian knows they approach the Bible with a covenantal framework. Your run-of-the-mill Evangelical thinks they don’t need to observe the Sabbath, yet they do need to tithe, and can’t say why or how they reached those conclusion. They came to those conclusions via their Theological framework. They have a tradition that they subscribe to. The difference between them and the Presbyterians is that the good Presbyterian knows their tradition, subscribes to it openly, and therefore invites and engages in critique. The average Evangelical doesn't know the tradition they follow in, they are unaware of how it informs their hermeneutics, and they have never thought through how to be consistent. Why should they? They just need the Bible, right?

 

Crude Biblicism and Lazy Exegesis

Those who practice crude biblicism would boast that they put the emphasis on exegesis. Yet in reality, their exegesis is debilitated by a lack of clarity and precision. It is easy to say you just teach the Bible when you feel no need to fit everything together carefully. But in my experience, I am more equipped and enthusiastic to pick up my Bible when I see the unity and clarity of God's Word. I already experience periods where I neglect study and meditation. I can't imagine what that would be like if I saw the Bible as a big mess of contradicting statements and believed that any position is possible depending on how you weigh the evidence. The discipline of being Theological forces the child of God to press more into the text, not less.

 

Calvin wrote the Institutes because he wanted to equip and encourage Christians to know the Bible. He also wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible. My hope is that we will continue to see how both ways of approaching God's Word are necessary and complementary.

Representative Democracy and Congregationalism

Last week, I was at a conference on Church renewal, Church planting, and Church revitalization. A topic that came up was the host Church's polity, which was elder-led congregationalism. Specifically, an issue that I spent some time discussing with my Pastor was congregationalism. You can go here for a discussion on the topic, or here for an older argument for congregationalism (p.904). 

I went away more or less convinced. Yet I do have a gut reaction that makes me hesitant about giving authority to the congregation as a whole. This probably comes from a fear that the Church will be and, to a certain degree, is plagued with the kind of democratic politicization that defines North American politics. By this, I don't have in mind the kind of democracy in which everyone simply participates in a common mission. That would surely be a good thing for the Church. What I fear and often see is nearly the opposite. The kind of politics we find in Canada involve people expecting their leaders to represent the peculiar interests of their demographic and then making that the criterion by which to judge the effectiveness of their leadership. I have witnessed that kind of crass, lazy "democracy" in Christian settings. People expect the leadership team to have representatives from every demographic: one leader from this side of town, one leader from the 30-somethings, one leader representing the older people from this part of this country, etc., etc.

The Apostles were not dismissive towards those who sensed partiality. The New Testament addresses the issue on multiple occasions and even documents a moment in the life of the early Jerusalem Church where an issue of partiality was addressed in a culturally-sensitive way (Acts 6). Yet the pastoral epistles seem to put a higher value on character and wisdom than representative democracy. Just as parents don't need to have all the same interests or opinions as their children in order to take care of them, Church leaders, if they have pastoral, caring hearts, can and should do a good job tending to the flock no matter how diverse the flock might be.

The Church is called to embrace diversity in class, age, ethnicity, and spiritual maturity (though, hopefully, the whole body would be growing together in that last category). But this shouldn't cause a Church to become over-democratized. There is a difference between a ministry that seeks to build up the whole body of Christ without partiality and a ministry that seeks to appease each demographic equally at every step in every process and ensure that each group has a "voice" in every members' meeting and every decision. The former is surely something to strive for. The latter emerges from an attitude and an environment that is childish, foolish, and, quite frankly, sinful.

Discernment in the Church

In a previous post, I noted that it was the Church in Antioch that set apart Paul and Barnabus for their first missionary journey. I applied this to missionaries and parachurch workers. It also applies to prospective pastors.

I don’t know how to do this every time in every place in our day. However, I do know how I want it to look like in my life. I don’t usually point to myself as a good example, but I do want to share what I’ve done as a demonstration that it can be done:

I have recently to pursue a Masters in Ministry (M Min) through an organization that helps Churches do Church-based Theological Education. Before applying, I took this to our Board of Deacons, they discussed the issue, and they decided to give their blessing and assistance to this endeavour. Recently, I preached a sermon series through Galatians. At the end, I specifically asked my Pastor what the feedback was from the membership and leaders in our Church. Apparently, no one was ready to hand me over to satan.

Some have asked me if I want to be a Pastor. I really believe that the answer to that is “let’s see where God leads me” and, more specifically, “God leads His people through His Church”. If my Church tells me “not now, but later”, I want to listen to that. If my Church says “no thank you”, I want to listen to that. If my Church says “Now!”, I want to listen to that. Discernment is a process that is done corporately, not just by individuals. And God's prescribed way of gathering His people is the local Church.

By the way, I don’t need a perfect Church for this to happen. Paul trusted the brothers in Antioch, even though this was the same Church that would be/was tricked by Peter’s hypocrisy in Galatians 2*. If Paul can trust his Church, I can trust mine. That doesn’t mean I’ll do whatever they say. It just means that it is a Biblical principle to involve your Church in the discernment process.

I am zealous that this be a part of our culture at our Church. The individualistic approach to calling and discernment is hurting the Church today. I pray that this will change.

*I’m not saying that the events in Galatians 2 occurred before Acts 13. I’m just saying that the hypocrites in Galatians 2 were the same men who laid hands on Paul in Acts 13. Not sure about the timeline myself. 

Expositional Preaching and a Balanced Pulpit

Well, it's been a while since my last post. For the past month, my life has been consumed with the task of doing a sermon series at my Church on Sunday mornings. Given that I am a layperson with a full-time job and other ministry responsibilities (and it was my wife's bday and Valentine's day), it was a busy month. I'll share a few thoughts on my experience on this blog, but here's at least one thought related to expositional preaching.

I've been very blessed to be able to work on the gift of preaching for quite some time. Even before our current pastor came to our Church, I had had some opportunities to proclaim the Word of God from the pulpit. One weekend, I was scheduled to preach. For some reason, I had chosen 1 Samuel 3 to be my text. It was the passage where Samuel is called by God to prophesy to Eli concerning God's punishment on Eli's household. A few weeks before I preached, I was certain that my sermon was going to be on God's Sovereignty in calling sinners for Himself (the sinner being Samuel). I told a friend, who told other people I was going to zealously declare the five points of Calvinism, and some of them dropped by to watch this display (I'm sure that's not the only reason they came). However, by the time I had written my sermon, I was convinced that was not the best way to handle the text. They were somewhat disappointed, though I'm pretty sure they were not "Calvinists". They just wanted to see a Calvinist do their strange Calvinist thing.

Anyways, my sermon ended up being about the kind of servants that God wants for Himself. You may perhaps think this equally missed the point of the text. I'm sure I'd do things differently if I were to preach that text today. Perhaps get into explaining how the priesthood and Samuel's reform fit into the story of Jesus. Nevertheless, the point is that a commitment to expositional preaching, however poorly executed, delivered me from a mob of synergists.

I continue to have this commitment. When you preach expositionally (in other words, the point of the text is the point of your sermon), you shift more and more authority from yourself and your opinions to the Word of God.

You can read others defend this conviction elsewhere (in far more convincing ways), but I do want to share my experience. I preached through Galatians and did it in five sermons. I simply would not have covered the topics I preached on if I was left to my own ideas and opinions. Going in, I was actually lamenting an over-emphasis on grace in contemporary Evangelicalism. I still think that is, to a certain extent, a problem. Yet Galatians bound me to its point: that having begun by the Spirit, we are not perfected by the flesh and if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for no purpose, and, on the basis of those truths, we should do good to all, especially those of the household of God. And as I tied myself to the text, I saw God speak through it to other areas of my life.

I've heard people comment on how strict and lifeless expositional preaching can be. But I see it as simply the best way to allow the Word of God to minister first to the preacher himself and then to others with as little interference as possible from the preacher and his own personal Theological hobby horses. That became more and more apparent as time went by. When I preach every two months, I usually end up gathering a few things I want to throw in when I get into the pulpit, no matter what the text is. A few weeks in, I had nothing left to talk about except the text in front of me*. That's probably how it should be.

*That's a bit of an exaggeration. I don't knowingly throw in things that aren't related to the text. And I do know more things about God and the Bible then I talked about. Not a whole lot more, but more nonetheless. Hopefully you get the general idea.

The Local Church and The Parachurch in Identifying and Sending Gospel Workers

[Adapted from a paper I wrote]

1 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who
was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and
Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. - Acts 13:1-3

Between 2003-2007, I pursued (and finished) my B.A. at University. At the same time, I grew increasingly involved in a parachurch organization on my University campus*. After University, I spent two years as an international intern in East Asia doing campus ministry. I gained significant exposure to this organization’s methodology in Canada, the United States, and in Asia. While I appreciate much of the focus on evangelism and discipleship that was present in the campus ministry during those years, I see notable differences between Paul’s ministry and that of this parachurch organization. This is particularly noticeable when it comes to the relationship between the local Church and missions.

In the Book of Acts, we see that the leaders in Antioch were not simply spectators in God’s selecting Barnabus and Paul, but were active participants in the Holy Spirit-led selection process. From my experiences, the local Churches were not only almost absent in the process, but unaware that such a process was happening at all. They simply didn't know that the campus ministry had such a very focused recruitment system.

Given that they only had four years, recruitment was intentional and rigorous. As a student leader, I was given a clear model of ministry for the school year: find Christian students, train them in evangelism and discipleship, sign them up for a Summer of further training either overseas or in-country, and end the year with a challenge to further student ministry in the following school year.

There was also an overarching model for a student’s four-year University career. The first two years, possible student leaders would be identified and given responsibilities. In the last two years, students showing giftedness in evangelism and discipleship would regularly hear a vision for the central role of campus movements in “changing the world” and actively recruited to join staff with the organization. This process was done at all levels: one-on-one mentorship, small group recruitment, weekly meetings, fall and winter conferences, and Summer short-term mission projects, all of which were designed with the express purpose (though, to be careful, not the sole purpose) of providing training and recruitment opportunities for the work of fulfilling the Great Commission through developing campus movements of evangelism and discipleship around the world.

To their credit, the campus ministry had a discernment process. Not everyone who stepped forward was guaranteed a job after University. However, the discrepancy between their sending process and the one that resulted in Paul and Barnabus's missionary work was that the local Church’s role in the former was almost negligible. The local Church's role consisted of filling out Pastor Reference Forms for short-term missions and providing financial and prayer support.

What to do?
I would suggest as a big step for both ends - encourage your students to get baptized and become members of local Churches (as necessary, I don't believe in re-baptism)! I'd really like to see my local Church have a baptism class and a membership class going on every week during the school year. I'm zealous that our students leave with a huge sense that the local Church is God's plan for fulfilling the Great Commission and displaying the power of the Gospel in the community of the saints.

*I have withheld the name of the organization. This is not because I think identifying them would be a sin, but because my intention is not to engage in discernment ministry. Such ministries are necessary and helpful to the Body of Christ, but it is not the purpose of this blog.

My definition of Missions

I have recently decided to change my use of the word missions and missionaries. My use will be something like this:

Missions is the work of building local Churches throughout the world. Missionaries are those who are sent out to participate in this work.

I'll probably continue to be inconsistent in my use, but if it was up to me, that's how I'd define missions. Here are a few reasons for my change:

1. I think we should keep the word, despite the confusion over its meaning
It's such a common word that I think we should keep it. On the other side, it's such a confused term, that I think we should redefine it.

People will say things like "every Christian is a missionary" and "she's doing missions work building wells" and "he's not really a missionary, he's only there for six months". That's annoying. Let's just redefine it.

2. I think we should link the word, missions, with the Great Commission. This demands the inclusion of the local Church in a useful definition.
If you get the Great Commission from Matthew 28, then you've got to include "baptizing" and "teaching all that I have commanded you" into that definition. I've worked for a parachurch organization. They don't intent to teach all that Christ commanded. That's fine, just don't call yourself missionaries.

If you get the Great Commission from Acts, then it's even more clear - being Christ's witnesses means participating in the expansion of local Churches*.

3. The term, Church planter, doesn't quite capture the concept I'm trying to suggest.
The term Church planter is being used quite regularly nowadays. People tend to understand it. That's not what I mean when I say missionary. A missionary could be an evangelist, a Bible translator, a children's worker, an itinerant preacher, an interim pastor, or someone sent to bring reform to existing Churches, as long as it advances the expansion of local Churches. Church planter seems to mean people who go and set up new Churches, either to stay there and be the Pastor or move on.

4. It's convenient.
Nowadays, the word, mission, is a synonym for purpose or goal. If that's the case, we might as well say:

The Church has a mission. We call the work of fulfilling that mission, missions. We call the people who are sent out to participate in that work, missionaries.

5. Other uses of the word are captured in other terms or are useless
Some people mean evangelists when they say missionaries. There is already a word for that: evangelists.

Some people mean frontier missions when they say missions. There is already a term for that: frontier missions.

Some people mean cross-cultural ministry when they say missions. You get the idea.

Some people mean "anytime you need to consider any difference in language, cultural norms, or presuppositions when sharing the Gospel". In my opinion, that's a useless definition.

I'm not zealous about spreading my definition, it's just more meaningful and helpful to me than competing definitions.

*See my first blog post for an explanation of my approach to the Book of Acts.

Essentials in Missions: Conclusion

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order... 
- Titus 1:5 (ESV)*

Just to give some concluding thoughts on the past few posts: I realize that my points would seem rather pedestrian to some and they may well be. However, I must stress that I was not presenting four steps to becoming an effective Church nor am I identifying four marks of a missions-focused Church. What I'm saying is that if you don't have these essentials in the DNA of your Church, you're not an established Church by Paul's, or God's, definition. Paul would not report to Antioch that your Church was a work that he had "fulfilled" (Acts 14:26). He might not have stayed. He may have sent a Titus or a Timothy to finish the job*. But the point is that if your Church doesn't have the essentials down, he would not have considered her to be a complete work of a Church planter/missionary**

The last few posts have presented my views (as I see from Scripture) in more or less uncontroversial ways. Here are, perhaps, more frank articulations of my position. Please keep in mind many of them apply to the Church I am currently a member and lay leader at:

If no body outside your local Church has a formal platform from which to speak truth to your Church, hold you accountable, and formally break fellowship with you, you're not at an established Church***.

If Evangelism would cease should your Pastor leave because no one knows how to do it, you're not at an established Church.

If your "essentialist" statement of faith is the only doctrinal statement that your Church has to call Church members to doctrinal maturity, you're not at an established Church.

If your Church has no agreed upon understanding of what a mature Christian life looks like, or if it does, it has more to do with tradition or pragmatism than the values of the New Testament Church, you're not at an established Church.

And if you have lots of brethren, but none of them aspire to leadership or ministry, so your only choice is to put out job postings and hire staff, and you're not sending anyone to the world, you are probably not at an established Church.

What to do? Ditch these Churches? All situations are different - I think the default should be staying and being an agent of reform - but this exercise has helped me identify what areas I want to emphasize when I think about the Great Commission. Whether or not I am right on every point, I pray that our Churches would desire to have the Bible define our approach to engaging in the Great Commission.


*I realize the specific issue for Titus in Crete was appointing elders (explained in the rest of the sentence). However, I see this as only confirming what I believe: Paul had an idea of what an established Church looked like. Many, if not most of our North American Evangelical Churches wouldn't fit the bill.
**I'll address the terminology at a later date.
***Note my use of the word "established". This is not an exercise to identify the marks of a true Church.