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.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Saturday, March 8, 2014
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.
Monday, February 24, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, February 3, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, January 17, 2014
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.
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.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
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.
- 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.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Essentials in Missions: Commissioning Church Leaders
[Adapted from a paper I wrote]
In Acts 13-14, we see Antioch in Syria as a Church that has leaders with identified spiritual gifts. We also see Paul and Barnabus commit the Churches they have planted to local leadership. Therefore, an established Church looks to equips and identify saints to be either local Church leaders or missionaries.
This does not remove the roles of seminaries or missions agencies. Rather, it puts the primary responsibility for raising up the next generation of leaders in the hands of the local Church.
Two important questions to consider:
In Acts 13-14, we see Antioch in Syria as a Church that has leaders with identified spiritual gifts. We also see Paul and Barnabus commit the Churches they have planted to local leadership. Therefore, an established Church looks to equips and identify saints to be either local Church leaders or missionaries.
This does not remove the roles of seminaries or missions agencies. Rather, it puts the primary responsibility for raising up the next generation of leaders in the hands of the local Church.
Two important questions to consider:
1. Does your Church actively identify and commission local leaders?
2. Does your Church actively identify and set apart missionaries/Church planters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)