A Letter to the Vision-Driven Church, Part I

‘I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate...       Revelation 2:19-20a  NASB

In his message to the church at Thyatira, Jesus pinpoints trouble in a church that seemed to know where it was going. Look at his description: notable deeds, love and faith, service, perseverance, and a trajectory in mission that resulted in latter deeds being greater than former ones. I think any of us looking at that description would say, "What a great church, now that's the way to do it!." Particularly, in today's business and marketing laden approach to church planting, church management and growth, those qualities would seem to be the core of producing the right kind of success.

Now please don't misunderstand what I'm saying, those were great characteristics. This church was relational, it was engaged and moving, they were focused. They knew what they were trying to accomplish, and they were getting after it. But as important as these considerations are, what cannot be overlooked is that they were not allowed by Christ to be substituted for proper teaching and upright behavior.

The message to Thyatira that perhaps today's church needs to clearly hear is that passe things like doctrine and discipline really do matter, at least to God. I fear that under the current church-growth regimens so widely practiced by congregations swallowing up whole the population of church-goers, discipline never rises past the level of showing the door to anyone who doesn't quite buy the leader's vision. Doctrine isn't anything more than the joyous knowledge that as long as you fit the profile the church is trying to attract and submit to that leader's vision, God loves you.

It is not enough to have a vision that drives your church. It is not enough to know one's mission and to dedicatedly pursue it. Even if one is successful in that aspect of church life, Christ may find significant and disastrous fault with such a church. Church discipline is a key aspect of church life as Christ would have it. False prophets, false teaching, immoral practices all have to be addressed via discipline. Talk about turning today's wisdom on its head--vision, evidently, is not a suitable vector for close-mindedness in church according to Christ, but doctrine is.

Her Name Rings A Jezebel

"...you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols."    Revelation 2:20 NASB 

Jezebel called herself a prophetess and unrepentantly led Christians in Thyatira into license. Exactly who was she? I doubt there was a person in Thyatira actually named "Jezebel" at the time of the writing of the Apocalypse, but I do think there was an actual person in Thyatira around that time who was symbolically designated by the reference but was otherwise unnamed. What I feel quite certain about is that whoever was referred to by the name was not a "spirit" or a demon. It's not that I don't think that a demonic spirit could have been behind the activity mentioned, it's just that it's not at all discernible from the text if it is. It's better not to make such a claim.

The name itself hearkens back to some of the dark days of the northern kingdom of Israel during the era of the divided kingdom. In a politically expedient marriage, Ahab, an Israelite king, married the heathen daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Sidonians. Her name was Jezebel. She was willful, a dedicated pagan, and in utter opposition to God and his prophets. Elijah, the one prophesied to reappear in the end of the age, was driven to despair and into hiding by her focused effort to undermine what he said and to kill him.

Whoever the actual person referred to by Christ may have been, the qualities which make her a symbol for all who followed are that she was: 1) a woman, 2) who wanted those in the believing community around her to embrace practices foreign to true religion, and 3) who resisted all correction from legitimate spiritual leadership. Furthermore, this self-appointed authority was associated with teaching the "deep things of Satan." Christians never need delve deeper into the things of Satan than realizing he's on the prowl seeking someone to devour. Learning his secrets is not the means of overcoming him, rather getting deeper into the things clearly, openly revealed in Christ is.

My experience over the last 30 years leads me to doubt any claim to "deep things" from contemporary prophetic figures, so when I hear the phrase used by teachers today, my mind translates it into: "reading into the text something completely alien to it". I do not doubt the Jezebel referenced by John the Revelator would have foisted her teaching in a similar vein. In fact, since I see these letters as prophetically representative and therefore in force for types of the local church as it exists in various places at various times, I would expect that at any given time some local church would be dealing with such a figure in their midst. If and when that happens, even though the false prophetess' name may not, her way most certainly should ring a Jezebel.

All This Talk About Vision

God speaks to people about what he will have them do. Today. He hasn't changed.

The experience of such would be called a vision, even if it wasn't something optically perceived. It seems funny to me, but everyone in the church world is all about vision these days, even if they are blatant cessationists (thanks for nothing Peter Drucker).

When a man or woman of God has an ambition or dream, ostensibly inspired by God in some way, they labor to put together all the pieces necessary to accomplish it. He or she puts up a target, and then pushes and pulls, moves and shakes, and out comes...

...a calf. These may (and I only say that by concession) not be our golden gods, but at the very least, they are our bronze serpents. The truth is that they are our Ishmaels.

The church world has so thoroughly embraced the strategic management techniques used in the world, that though the product resulting from this kind of vision may be accurately consumer-driven, it is about as far away from the model described in the manual as sand castles are from real ones. Since this kind of vision is the product of human imagination, in what way can it be said to be a vision from God? For that matter, would God even bother to give us a vision if the thing we were endeavoring to accomplish could be achieved by human ingenuity in the normal course of affairs? The results of these managerial efforts never produce Isaacs, and can never measure up to the model in the heavens.

When God does grant a vision to a person, it is not like he places an order with that person, or is commanding that one to accomplish the thing shown. The vision is a demonstration or a display, really a sneak preview, of what is coming to pass. He doesn't give us visions for us to figure out how to make it so, he gives us visions of what is he is bringing forth. Generally, they are beyond any possibility of us making them so anyhow, and they only come about by the most unusual and bizarre of circumstances.

Our efforts to produce the vision from God instead produce hardship. They result in Ishmaels which strive against all men. They result in the trashing of those who can't "keep up," the disdain of those less perceiving, and the exploitation of the blood-bought as if they were mere raw materials. They produce pride and division, and leave heritages of animosity. To hell with such visions!

By contrast, God's efforts to fulfill the vision he shared produce the joy of the Lord. They result in Isaacs, which are pleasant in their surprise, gentle to all, and demonstrate the peaceable fruits of righteousness. They do not trash, belittle, or otherwise relegate to trophy cases the blood-bought and beloved of God. They produce laughter and praise, and leave the sweet savor of heaven behind.

Perhaps it has something of a biblical precedent, all this talk of vision: it leaves a sour taste in my mouth!

Gender Roles In Marriage

Men and women are different by nature, not just physically, but psychologically as well. That is a generalization, of course, and lots of folk will not fall precisely in any definition highlighting said differences. Nonetheless, I know countless women who find themselves torn when it comes to leaving their infant in the care of others when it's time to return to their work: I know of no men experiencing the same or similar consternation. Does this imply anything about gender roles in marriage? Well, yes and no.

Men do not bear children in the womb, almost never develop working breasts, and do not face the same hormonal swings as do females. They are not designed by nature to nurture infants at anywhere near the level that females are. It's not that men cannot be wonderful, caring fathers (certainly, it doesn't take genes to change diapers, give baths, or rock a cranky baby), but I have yet to see the same natural care, connection and ease of relating exist between father and infant that seems effortless between mother and her baby.

I think common sense would lead one to the conclusion that women will tend to be more domestically oriented in Christian marriage than men, but the Bible removes all doubt. I understand that some of the specifics of these passages are culturally bound, but I think the general message is unmistakable. In our day and age, we have been blessed to be much further removed from subsistence than were the original audiences of these passages. Our application of the principles will look different than theirs, but it will still result, generally, in mothers of young children being more oriented to their care and nurture than their fathers.

Fighting against the physical nature one has been made with is never anything but abominable before God, but that doesn't mean that KP is a woman's realm and bringing in the doggies is man's. Specifically, a husband and wife will have to agree together as to how this looks for them. I think what's important to remember in defining Christian marriage in this regard, is that neither spouse can enforce such decisions on the other. You're partners in the grace of God, get over yourself and figure it out together.

The Gender Consequences of the Fall

I've stated earlier that God knew marriage was temporary (see the link in the title). It will not be our state in eternity, and I am forced to believe that this must have been the case before the Fall, not only after it. Certainly, God not only knows what he's doing, he always knew it and always will (omniscience). If you follow this thought to its logical conclusion, it means that Adam and Eve may have been in good condition, but were not in their ultimate state before the Fall (see 1 Corinthians 13:9-12). Created gender--male and female he created them-- was a purely functional, and merely temporary contrivance.

This fact is verified in the NT by Galatians 3:26-29, which teaches that in Christ (the eternal condition) there is neither male nor female, everyone is merely a son. Gender is not an eternal verity, it is just a passing means to an end; therefore, our born again approach to gender better not rely upon created order, nor current physical reality, or it will miss what is of eternal significance. Doubtless, those considerations have had some value in history, but they will have none in eternity.

Gender authority distinctions were introduced to the human race with the curse. After Adam and Eve were confronted by God for sin (willful independence in opposition to God) they were cursed as follows: the male would rule over the female though it would be her desire [to master him] (see Genesis 4:7 for the grammatical construction). The effect of sin upon the interaction of husband and wife would be the development of a hierarchical relationship which would result in a battle of wills rather than a partnership in mission. Such a structure is clearly the result of sin and the curse rather than the design of God.

So why is gender such a controversial issue in the church today? Egalitarians pay little heed to it, complementarians see it as determinative. I see that sin and the curse have been dealt with in Christ, and that faith embraces the eternal promise of God, even while we still waste away in a world that is still wasting away. For freedom we have been set free. Is it not well past time for the church, particularly her men, to rise up and set the captives free from the gender consequences of the Fall?


Addendum: Check out this post on women leaders in Wesleyan movements.

"May I Take Your Order?"

... all things should be done decently and in order.  1 Corinthians 14:40 (ESV)

Today, I align the cross hairs of my hermeneutic scope squarely on the congregation-squelching, Spirit-emasculating, glory-blocking concept of order. Not order as the word itself would mean, but all that which man puts in place in the name of order which only serves to quench the Holy Spirit. That kind of thing is thought good in many quarters, while that which would yield to the Spirit's spontaneous inspiration is called indecent. 

Are we that afraid to follow the Word and let the Spirit direct us?

What was the Apostle Paul calling for in this verse? Orders of Service? Lectionaries, liturgies, and canons? Does it serve as the excuse for minister-orchestrated meetings, for sergeants-at-arms to enforce adherence, or emcees to keep the show moving? I don't think so! Considering that he's spent all of Chapter 14 establishing that a congregational meeting is about participation, not observation, and that more spontaneous than prepared.

Paul attempted to teach a middle road between cacophonous chaos and church mouse quiet. He was promoting the fullest possibility of participation in ministry, without having the loudest or the strongest take over to everyone else's detriment. In other words, our services should be arranged (κατὰ τάξιν), i.e. so ordered, with full participation in view. Participation should be offered in good form (εὐσχημόνως), so decently. Ordered for participation done decently, that's what the Apostle was trying to convey.

Paul was not telling us to substitute the direction of our meetings by the presiding officer for the leading of the Holy Spirit in the congregation.

I'm beginning to wonder whether or not the former is what we're most comfortable with. God in charge means mystery, uncertainty-- the possibilities that our hearts will be laid bare with no place to hide except in the love of Christ. If the Spirit is in charge things might get emotional, might not stay on agenda. We might not get out in time to get a table at our favorite restaurant! 

When the Holy Spirit moves in our meetings and "takes" our order, unlike that favorite restaurant, he's not about to serve our appetites. Rather, he's about to impress his order instead of ours. When he does, his intention is to spontaneously express his manifold grace to the body through the body. So when the Spirit says, "May I take your order?" The correct answer is always, "yes, please do."

The World's Background Noise

It's been said that the mass of humanity is sheep-like, following whomever seems to know where to go. There doesn't have to be a logic to it, boldness is sufficient to turn the masses. Adolf Hitler's strategy was to tell the biggest lie he could as boldly as he could, and the sheep would follow in tow. Hitler as Bo-peep, now there's an image you won't find on the average blog, boy, I wish I had graphical skills!

It doesn't take anything as dark as Hitler to reveal this quality in the human race, we see it in the rather silly and less threatening realm of fashion and celebrity. A star wears the outrageous or impractical and the stores can't stock enough to staunch the crescendo of bleating. Though we're all adapting to the concept of the viral in the internet age, I wonder if its roots trace wa-a-a-a-ay back before Al Gore's famous creation to the fawning of a new age introduced by bobby-soxers' hysteria over Frank Sinatra.

Does one little match really set the forest aflame?

It makes one wonder, at least it does me, where my ovine tendencies are leading me. Whether it be election year musings, or some more profound stirring of soul, I'm asking myself whose lead am I truly following. We all know the PC (preferred Christian) answer: Jesus!-- but does an investigation of our trail  to this point reading this silly blog, confirm or belie that contention?

There are many whose wool rises above the heights of any other's in the vicinity. They write books for dummies, testify to the greener grass in the pasture they know the way to. They host TV shows, wool carded and sounding not b-a-a-a-a-d at all. They get on soapboxes in the public square and blather until we choose, between them or that other blatherer standing on a different colored soapbox, which to follow.

Where are we going following them? 

It's time for us to begin checking credentials at the door. You know, that door to your life (thanks Bill Bright). We're not made of iron and these stars we follow are not made of neodymium. We can't follow two masters, two gurus, or two directions at once. Jesus rose from the dead so his credential trumps everyone else's. So, regardless of what anyone is selling, or supposedly knows, or thinks they can guarantee, put all your eggs in Jesus' basket.

We don't need to be like the world, we don't need to have what the world thinks we do, we don't need to fit into their mold, and we don't have to see things their way.

The ruckus of all that bleating, even the howls of wolves, are just background noise.

Abortion's Reluctant Champion?

Here's a remarkably well done analysis of Sen. Obama's response to the abortion question Rick Warren posed last week during the Civil Forum. Generally, I wouldn't put something this partisan on my blog, but it is wonderfully expansive and can be applied more generally to the arguments anyone uses to excuse abortion out of one side of the mouth while they despair over it out the other. Enjoy reading, and saying, "that's what I'm talkin' 'bout," (that's more fun than amen when dealing with political subjects!). Then come back and tell me if it's possible to be a reluctant champion of abortion.

How to Handle a Fallen Leader

The Todd Bentley affair has brought into sharp relief one reality church folk never seem to be able to remember: every minister who has ever lived, or ever will, is just an ordinary human being. Like anyone else they have strengths, they have weaknesses, they sin. Whatever gift they pass along is no more their fault than the waters of the Mississippi are attributable to the towns she meanders through. As gravity, not will, dictates her muddy course, so to the Spirit of God, not the merit of a man, decides who is gifted and how.

The thud of the mighty falling awakens us from reverie. Startled, we're aghast and thirsty for blood. They may not have actually been giants, but looking up to them, our perspective made them seem so. Their failure calls into question all we so readily received at their hands and shakes our very foundations. We've been had, we reason, and we want our dignity returned along with a pound of flesh from the guilty. In no time flat, we mob together at the Place de la Concorde, shouting, "off with his head!"

It would be nice if we never had occasion to get this right in the future (we will), but I fear we're already over the threshold of getting it wrong in the present. We seem unable to learn from the Bible or the past, and so we repeat the same missteps over and over and over and over again. Every time we do, the church looks more like a petty social club than the body of Christ--the only army in the world that kills its wounded rather than dressing their injuries, and especially so if they're officers.

What should we do?

Look to the word: 1 Timothy 5:19-21; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20; and 1 Corinthians 5:9-12 give us plenty of instructions about how to deal with this kind of thing. Matthew 18:15-17 is also helpful, but is trumped by the Timothean passage when dealing with an accusation against an elder. I think the process can be summed up this way: confrontation, admonition, contrition/excommunication, restoration. In the case of an elder (church leader), transparency is commanded and necessary.

What should be jarring about this process is that disqualification is not one of the steps. 

Disqualification is not a biblical concept in either the Old or the New Testament. Samson didn't cease being a judge of Israel, even as he milled grain before the derisive glares of his pagan enemies. David didn't boot Saul out of office before his time, despite God rejecting Saul's kingship. Saul was qualified by God when he became king and he remained the Lord's anointed until he died. David's only recess in service occurred as a result of rebellion, not justice. Peter never stopped being an apostle in Jesus' mind, though he denied the Lord in the time of trial.

In fact, one of the things I love best about the biographies in the scriptures is that we are shown the godly, warts and all--the good, the bad and the ugly! Their stories tell us that God's servants are his servants, even when they prove themselves all too human. Arbitrarily removing God's servant from service is a fleshly concept from the world, not even hinted at in the NT. The gifts and callings of God are without repentance. 

Though one must meet certain qualifications to embark in ministry, once the mooring line has been released, that ship has sailed. There is no indication whatsoever that a failing minister has to requalify (read: go through a lengthy process leading to restoration) in order to serve. As I see it, these automatic ministerial decapitations are completely unscriptural-- more akin to the ravenous French mob drooling in front of the guillotine than the body of Christ. God forbid!

So what would a biblical process of correcting elders look like?

When an accusation against an elder is substantiated by witnesses, that elder is to be confronted by the witnesses and a fellow elder. If the charges are admitted and the accused wants to repent, confess and go on with ministry, he should be publicly, and I would add specifically, rebuked before his church. The accused elder should then publicly acknowledge his guilt fully and honestly before his congregation, and humbly announce what actions are being taken to turn from the sin.

His ministry should then continue, but with transparency concerning the issues of the fall.

Hiding things under the carpet until the dust settles, or having experts beat that carpet clean in their secluded workshops is not what the Bible commands. Neither are arbitrary suspension periods, or restoration processes-- these are human inventions, not scriptural mandates. They have not served the body well, it seems to me, and only cover a wound rather than healing it. Healing and deliverance occur in the light: it's the truth that sets us free.

If a minister will not repent or accept correction, or is not willing to be transparent about the process, he or she should be publicly excommunicated, even if in absentia. There are, as well, certain legal transgressions that will make it impossible for a minister to ever lead corporately thereafter. Regardless, our aim and hope should always be restorative, for there are way too many wasted gifts and way too much avoidable damage done in the body of Christ all in the name of correction.

The cure should never be worse than the disease.

The List of Spiritual Gifts

It's time for the list. This, of course, represents only my cobbling together of what the Word says about the subject. One could see it somewhat differently and still be correct. Hopefully, this will help you see things from the broadest perspective, while giving you the detail necessary to grasp what each gift is.

THE SPEAKERS

Apostle: one sent by God to a people to establish the church among them. There is an administrative (supervisory) aspect to this gift, but it not directly associated with hierarchical office (as with the Mormons)-- its authority is confined to its function. (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

Evangelist: one who announces the good news to the public (which hasn't heard it yet). It's not foundational (like the apostle or teacher), because it's tasked with making people believers, not making believers into a church. (Ephesians 4:11)

Prophet: one who proclaims and interprets what God is saying to the church. The prophet speaks to strengthen, encourage and comfort God's people. This gift is not about prognostication, nor has it anything to do with hierarchical office. (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

Exhorter: one who speaks to urge others on in matters pertaining to God. I really see this as a subset of the prophetic gift, but can see someone being an exhorter without being a prophet. (Romans 12:6-8)

Linguist: one who speaks and interprets tongues in public. No, you will not see it listed this way in the scriptures, this is my synthesis of what is said about it there. Not everyone who speaks in tongues in public will be a linguist, but those who are linguists will be interpreters. This (as in the case of the exhorter) is a subset of the prophetic gift, but it is possible to be a linguist without being a prophet or a prophet without being a linguist (I Corinthians 12:28)

Pastor: one who tends the flock of God. This gift has both administrative (supervisory) and speaking (teaching) aspects. Whereas the apostle establishes the church, the pastor maintains it. That is not an institutional task, but an interpersonal one-- it's about the sheep not the sheepcote. This gift is directly associated with the supervisory church office (elder/bishop) which is as close as the Bible gets to validating anything hierarchical in the church. The pastor is always a teacher and a leader, but it is possible to have teachers or leaders who are not pastors. (Romans 12:6-8 [leader], 1 Corinthians 12:28 [teacher/governor], Ephesians 4:11)

Teacher: one who instructs the church in the commands of God and how to apply them to daily life. This is a subset of the pastoral gift, but it is possible to be a teacher without being a pastor. (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

THE SERVERS

Server: one who attends to things that need to be done (similar to a Deacon). Everyone in the body serves in some capacity, but this gift does it in inspired, focused fashion. This is not necessarily the same as the office of Deacon, that is supervisory, this is functional, but I would think the office of Deacon would often be filled by those who are gifted as servers. By way of interest, Philip, the evangelist was a notable example of one who served in the office of Deacon, but was gifted as other than a server. (Romans 12:6-8)

Giver: one who shares his or her substance with the church. Some folk are appointed by God to be channels of blessing to the rest of the church. Everyone gives, but the gifted do so in ways enabled only by God. That, however, does not equate with being rich! (Romans 12:6-8)

Sympathizer: one who alleviates the suffering of others in the church. This is a mercy ministry. Everyone in the family of God is expected to show mercy to the family of God, sympathizers do so at an exemplary, Spirit-inspired level. (Romans 12:6-8)

Miracle Worker: one who exerts supernatural power. Everyone in the body of Christ can move in the supernatural, this gift does so on a marked, consistent basis without any necessary connection to preaching. (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Healer: one who heals the sick. Everyone in the body of Christ can pray for the sick, anyone in the body can be used by God to bring a miraculous healing to someone who is sick, but the healer ministers this wonder on a consistent basis without any necessary connection to preaching. (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Helper: one who addresses the petitions of the needy. Everyone in the body should respond to the needs of their brothers and sisters, but some are enabled to do so in a particularly dedicated fashion. This may seem a replication of the gift of giver, but I think it involves more than substance and sustenance. Though this ministration is part of the duties entailed in the office of Deacon (as with the server), the gift is functional whereas the office is supervisory. Possessing this gift doesn't mean one will hold that office (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Leader: one who steers and superintends the church. The offices of Elder (overall oversight) and Deacon (service supervision) are the actual supervisory positions in a church, but their biblical descriptions do not necessarily specify what gifts one must possess in order to serve in them. In its formative stages, a church will be supervised by its apostle; thereafter, it may be supervised by some other gift acting in the office of Elder. The qualifications for that office specify functionally that an elder be instructive, but that is not quite the same as saying the elder must be gifted as a teacher. I could see the possibility of someone being gifted as a leader, capable of passing on effective instruction, but not gifted as a teacher, or any other speaking gift for that matter. What that implies in regards to the concept of church leadership vested in a plurality of elders I'll leave to you. (Romans 12:6-8 [governs], I Corinthians 12:28 [administration])

******************************************

One could debate the way I condensed this number and these particular gifts from the stew of the three passages we have been discussing. Since all of the lists are representative and none is exhaustive, the possibility exists that there could be gifts that are not found in any of these lists. I don't think that's true, but I can't prove it. Someone could see the cross-referencing differently than I have as well. Regardless, what we all should be able to agree to is that God intends each of us to express the gift he's placed within us, and whatever your gift, God has given you the manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the benefit of all. I hope this series helps you express both.

What's the Point of Spiritual Gifting?

In a series of posts last year (here, here, here and here), I discussed the realities of how leadership (eldership) actually gets expressed in the modern church. Some of what is said this post will touch on some of the same material, but from a slightly different perspective. You may find it helpful to take a look those articles in conjunction with this posting, hence the links for your convenience.

When he dealt with the subject of spiritual gifts, Peter divided them into two classifications: speakers and servers. Paul divided them into two different classifications (what this post will develop) of two classifications. In Ephesians 4, he presents them in terms of the equippers and the equipped; and in 1 Corinthians 12, he presents them in terms of the foundational and the following. 

As I have argued before, the ordinals used in 1 Corinthians 12:28 refer to the sequence of emergence, not to comparative importance. Paul's point in using this demarcation was to show the proper development of gifts in the body from those first appearing to those appearing after some development. He was not setting up a hierarchy of value as much as he was trying to get the Corinthians to not be fixated on tongues to the exclusion of other gifts, important gifts needed for the church to properly develop. 

Certainly, his aim wasn't to offer v. 29-31 as a qualitative gradient that would allow future cessationists to dismiss the miraculous.

The body of Christ, in any area, starts with one, or at best a very few people. Generally, that one was sent there by God to be his representative and to establish his kingdom in that place-- the very definition of the ministry of an apostle. When the apostle starts his work in any given place, he is the body of Christ, and whatever ministry comes forth, comes forth through him. As the Word, signs attending, begins to reap a harvest of souls, folk are added to the one and the body grows.

As the body grows, God raises up people from among those the apostle's ministry has added to speak forth as he leads them for the strengthening, encouragement and comfort of God's people-- the very definition of the ministry of a prophet. The church is thereby established as ministry is expanded beyond the apostle to the prophet. Therefore, it can be said that the apostles and prophets are foundational to all that is built upon their work in the time which is following. 

As growth and development continue, God raises up folk who can teach those who have come to believe in Christ what he has commanded and how to apply that word to daily living-- the very definition of the ministry of a teacher. Once the body is at the place where some greater measure of folks have become disciples of Christ, ministry expands into a host of more specialized giftings. At that point, the fact that not all are apostles, or prophets, or teachers, or work miracles, or heal, or speak in tongues, as a ministry, becomes self-evident. 

A obsessive fascination with, or a "self-appointment" to a particular gift out of place or prior to its time only hinders the proper Spirit-directed development of the body; hence, Paul's dissertation to the Corinthians on the subject. 

The list of gifts found in Ephesians 4, which we tackle now, is perhaps the most misunderstood of them all. Today, especially in some of the newer church movements, these gifts are seen, it seems to me, as expressions of authority rather than as functional utilities. Polity is established on having people serve in the "offices" of apostle and prophet, rather than understanding these things as endowments which serve a need in the body.

I believe this is a misappropriation of the scriptures, and practically, breeds cult-like authoritarianism rather than Christ-like service. Rather than misappropriating the names of apostle and prophet, why not borrow the tried and true and use the term, bishop. Church leadership is established, very clearly, by the New Testament in the office of elder (or bishop). If one can see that folks with differing gifts can serve as elders, the fight for biblical polity and proper understanding of gifting is half won!

There are four gifts mentioned in the list in Ephesians: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers. Listing them this way, rather than as five, acknowledges the particular grammar of the passage, even though other lists mention teaching separately. Evidently, in the context of Ephesians 4, it is the teaching aspect of pastoring that is being highlighted by Paul, rather than more administrative functions.

What these gifts have in common, and what is focused upon in this text is that they serve a preparatory function within the body of Christ. The named four (the "some" in the text) are equippers, whereas the unnamed masses are the equipped. The aim is that some in the mass will eventually be one of the four, and all of the mass will become functioning parts of the body doing the work the Spirit of God has gifted them to do.

What is the means by which equippers take the raw material of Adamic flesh and build it into the body of Christ? It is the Word. The proclamation of the Word to the unbeliever brings new birth; the presentation of it to the novice is what inculcates truth; the application of it is what guides the established. In the kingdom, faith is what matters, and faith arises on the wings of the Word. So, the most fundamental quality of these four gifts is not authority of position, but God-given ability to proclaim the word within the context of their gift.

Presenting pastoring in the unusual fashion he did (with teaching emphasized), I think, clinches the argument.

Apostles proclaim the word among a people which has not heard it in order to establish the church of Christ among them. Evangelists proclaim the word to folks that have not heard it so they might receive the good news of the gospel. Prophets proclaim the word, fitted for the moment, which helps folks be built up in it. Pastor/teachers proclaim the word to people who need to apply it to living with understanding. All of them endeavor to move folk along on the pathway to maturity and to their own service in the body through functional gifting.

So spiritual gifting is never about the titles or authority of leaders, but always about maturity, health and function of the body.

Although the passage in Romans 12 leads into its gift list by associating them with the expression of God's grace (as does the Ephesian passage), and although it focuses upon how the gifts are used (as does the greater Corinthian context), its take on gifts is unique in demonstrating how we actually "act" in the gifts. It's not a list of nouns but verbs. It's not about prophets, servants, teachers, exhorters, givers, rulers, or empathizers, but prophesying, serving, teaching, exhorting, giving, ruling, and empathizing. That may be a subtle distinction, but an interesting one regardless.

What do I think that distinction tells us?

Among other things, it tells us to use the gift in producing the results of the gift. I could go on and on about what that says about our modern fascination (er, distraction?) with strategy and techniques, but I'll do my best to stay on task! Suffice it to say that the ability that grace deposited in us (gift) is not only sufficient to produce its intended result, but it should be relied upon to do so. The gift within us should not remain idle; it should not be suppressed (by ourselves or others); method should not be substituted for it; and its compulsion should not be considered secondary. Instead of wondering what the experts think about a ministry endeavor, we should be asking ourselves what the gift of God within us is inspiring.

That is not to say that we should be uncooperative and unsubmissive to the body of Christ around us, that is contraindicated by the concept of body itself. It does mean that what the Spirit intends to get done through us won't get done because the Grand Poobah (read vision-caster) has a plan we become cogs in, or that a consultant figured out a really good way to do that kind of a thing, or that we have achieved some level of preparation that now qualifies and certifies us to do it. No doubt, those things can be useful in building a successful organization, but what do they have to do with a temple indwelt by the Spirit of God?

All of us have had our fuse lit by the Spirit of God. In grace towards us, God dropped a bit of spiritual nitro into our souls which infused us with an energy that self-organizes the matter of life into its foreordained design. The gift itself compels us to produce the effects of the gift. Jesus experienced this, Paul did too, so should we. The gift is the tiger in our tanks, so with faith in in the promise of God, take that tiger by the tail and go for the ride of a lifetime.

The Audience of Worship

Who is the intended audience of the "worship" segments of congregational meetings?

If the answer is the visitor or newcomer, those segments are designed, like everything else in such churches, to appeal to the next one in the door. That one must be prospected, projected and then specifically, strategically prepared for and enticed. It's a marketing thing, often a niche marketing thing, but is it a worship thing?

If the answer is the folk sitting in the congregation, those segments are designed, often very responsively, to retain those returning through the door. The wants, wishes, even grumbling, of those will guide, forestall or derail any attempt to change the status quo. It's an appeasing, people-pleasing thing, but is it a worship thing?

If the answer is people, regardless of the considerations above, the goal of those fronting "worship" time will be to thrill, or at least to satisfy, the cash paying audience in the seats. The likelihood is that those leaders will be inordinately attended to by both the audience and the church "promoters" who enlist them, everyone together "stoking the star-maker machinery behind the popular song." It's a pop concert or stage show thing, but is it worship?

An innocent misstep a sincere worship leader can make is tugboating-- attempting to lead the folk into the port of "presence." However, playing David to the congregation's Saul is not a New Testament paradigm. The folk in the seats are not faithless fakes who have no God inside them and so have to be pushed from without. They are a living temple, a habitation of the Holy Spirit. The worship team doesn't have to "take them into the throne room," they're already there! 

The issue in corporate worship is the congregation's recognition and acknowledgement of God with them, in them, and their appropriate response to him. With all of this in mind, then, who is the audience of worship?

None other than God himself, and God and no one else. When someone says, "worship was great today!" he or she is utterly deluded if they had the worship team's performance in mind. However, if they had the congregation's participation and God's manifest presence in mind, they'd be keenly insightful. When worship is truly worship, the church is the orchestra, the Spirit is the maestro, and God is the audience.

Church As Family

The word says that God sets the lonely in families. Families are a mark of his compassion and grace. Of all his inventions for the benefit of humanity, in my my mind, none beats the family. In America, however, we suffer a debilitating disease, which infects the broader West as well-- family has lost it's cachet and is not valued as highly as it once was. We have actually become anti-family in many ways, and our disease is wasting our society.

That situation is not limited to our families of birth but applies to our families of rebirth as well.

There seems to me to be a panic among religious prognosticators in the West concerning the future of Church. They read the tea leaves and blare their trumpets, "if something isn't done soon, we'll lose the next generation!" So, much discussion has ensued about the proper paradigm for the church in our day. What can be done to make the church relevant, resilient, and resurgent in the generations coming of age?

If God never said anything about the subject, our brainstorming might be appropriate, but he has spoken in his Word and we should at least have a clue. No model is offered there for church other than that of family. In any age, in any culture, church is meant to be seen as the family of God. Believers are brothers and sisters in the Lord, we all share one heavenly Father, and are instructed to love each other in a familial manner. If church is an institution, the institution it is has to be is the family.

The paradigm that works to produce the body God desires is the Church As Family. Fan clubs for religious superstars, social service agencies aiming to treat societal ills, social clubs giving members a place to belong, playgrounds, spas, mass entertainment venues, or religious businesses opening branches everywhere possible in an effort to dominate the market are not models taught by Jesus or described by the Word. Even if one found organizational success in adopting these unscriptural modalities, that would not equate to divine endorsement.

To be honest, I don't know why we even think in terms of trying to satisfy some element of population that isn't satisfied with a biblical paradigm. If those not satisfied don't drop their self-indulgent notions and submit to Christ as Lord and the Word as the rule of faith and conduct, do they even belong in the church? Church is the family of God, anyone not an actual brother or sister is merely a visitor. Some accommodation may be made for a visitor, but who turns their ongoing family-life upside down because a visitor drops in?

Some might say, "do it for evangelism," however, most evangelism doesn't occur within the confines of church services. Besides, evangelism is not presenting something other than Christ crucified and risen, nor calling for something less than repentance and faith concerning him. Believing in Christ and yielding to his Lordship is how we become part of the family. The unrepentant, the unyielding, those not surrendered, and the self-serving are not saved whether they're in church or out, accommodating them can only mean not accommodating Christ.  

Christianity isn't a popularity contest and following Christ isn't going to win anyone friends amongst those that don't follow Christ. The truth is what sets people free, and seeing brothers and sisters love one another is what makes the world know we're actually followers of Christ. If we actually want to build on the foundation Paul laid, then church has to be family. Anything else is wood, hay and stubble good for nothing but smoke and flame.

A Philosophy of Ministry

My mother is going through some health difficulties at the moment. It looked like cancer for a while, but that has now been eliminated as a cause. That leaves us with a bit of a mystery as far as diagnosis goes, but I'm trusting that God heard the prayers lifted up for her and cursed that thing. During this difficulty, I have become acutely aware of what a blessing family is. My three sisters, my brothers-in-law, nephews and nieces and my wife have all rallied as we've circled the wagons and prepared for a fight. How would we manage without each other at a time like this?

As a pastor, my philosophy of ministry has always seen the church not as an organization, not as an institution, but as family. We are brothers and sisters, we have one Father, and one dynamite big brother. We are not co-consumers or clientele of a religious supermarket, we're not lemmings following a spiritual guru, we're not activists pursuing a cause, nor even a social club of Jesus aficionados. Those viewpoints of the church are held by some either overtly or tacitly, and always end up reflected, practically, in the way they "do church." The problem with those ideas is not that they are necessarily intrinsically evil, but that they are not scriptural and therefore cannot produce church life that is reflective of the scripture.

There are problems with my viewpoint, especially in regard to marketing and corporate nimbleness. If one has a desire to do this church thing "big time" my viewpoint is a disaster; nonetheless, I'll stick with it. Christ has not called me to "win the world," or to "take my city," or to "launch a movement." I don't see one single scriptural reason to believe he would call anyone to such grandiose visions-- human ego will have to get the credit for that! He has adopted me into his family, to love my brothers and sisters and to be loved by them, like we were blood. And by word and deed, to persuade others to join this family of love.

Giving breath to that reality is what church life is about. If that idea doesn't appeal to you, the next time your life is in desperate turmoil, call a church shopper, who probably won't know you from Adam, and see how likely she is to lay down her life for a fellow shopper. Would you go to bat for another Wal-mart shopper just because she's a Wal-mart patron too? Probably not, who would? But to lay down your life for an eternal sister that Christ, whom you love, laid down his life for, that I'm betting you probably would be willing to do, because family beats business or institution any day.

Props to the Preachers

I want to take some time to publicly acknowledge those who have most impacted my life as a disciple of Christ and a minister of the gospel. There is no question these fine gentlemen have much better fruit to their credit than me, but from this, maybe the fruitiest, a very sincere thanks to these men of God for a job well done.

Rex Bornman
Rex was my first pastor after coming to Christ. My first visit to the State College Assembly of God, where he pastored, came a week after I marched the aisle and was subsequently baptized at a Southern Baptist Church in Harrisburg, PA (my home town). I totally freaked out-- the place was positively spooky, but even though it scared the bejeebers out of me, I felt a strange compulsion to go back to that place, where the people responded to God in a way that made sense, at least if one truly believed in hell and salvation.

As I devoured the Word and talked with God, the Lord would instruct and illumine me. Sunday after Sunday, Rex would preach (in his own flamboyant style), and repeat almost verbatim what God had been speaking to me in my “prayer closet.” Talk about being pumped! I learned what God sounded like through that ongoing experience and developed sensitivity to and trust in the voice of the Holy Spirit. You’ll not likely ever read this Rex, but thanks. You’re the best in my book, and still the most effective preacher I have ever had the pleasure to see or hear. 

Stephen Michaels
The first time I heard Steve preach was on the street outside Schwab Auditorium on the campus of Penn State. Generally, I did not like street preachers: they were nothing but clanging cymbals playing for shock value to get an audience. Not Steve, he spoke with passion, but logically, sensibly, persuasively.

A couple of years later, Rex introduced him as the new campus pastor for the Chi Alpha chapter the State College A/G was sponsoring at Penn State. Steve cleaned up real well! In my first conversation with him, I slightly hinted (and I do mean just slightly!) that I was intrigued by the Holy Spirit. Steve told me he’d be at my room at 5pm, and gave me little chance to object.

With Bible in hand he began going through the scriptures concerning the Holy Ghost. I was getting excited, and after about ten minutes of his presentation, I knew God wanted to baptize me in the Holy Ghost and would. Steve went on for about another 20 minutes or so, while I was chomping at the bit. He laid hands on my head, I felt overwhelmed and overflowing, and started speaking in heavenly language I did not know.

From that time until I left college (I hung around for a short while after graduation) Steve was a friend and counselor, discipler and example. Thank you Steve, for the much good you did for me. 

Mike Smith
I started Bible college in January of 1984, 1100 miles away from home, in a town I’d never been at before, knowing no one but my poor wife, who got dragged along with me into the frozen tundra (sweet thing, she came along cheerfully). We began searching for a church family. In the process, one Sunday morning, we got on a schoolbus that had come to North Central and off we went to who knows where.

We ended up in White Bear Lake, MN at Calvary A/G. They worshipped there, it was refreshing. Then, Mike Smith got up to preach. He was a rugged looking fellow, with a kind voice, and light in his eyes. He was refreshing. A couple of years later, he gave me my first job in ministry. He was one of the nicest people I have ever met. To this day, I don’t think I have met a better example of kindness and grace. Thank you Mike, for the start and for the example.

Paul Grabill
When I was a home missions pastor in Pittsburgh, one of the Sectional Committeemen was assigned by the presbyter to be my mentor and treasurer. He was a doctoral candidate at Fuller, attempting to lead an old A/G church stuck in the 50’s into the 80’s. He had flaming red hair! He was patient and smart, and knew more about the nuts and bolts of church life than anyone I ever met. He poured knowledge liberally upon my hardened head—some of it seeped in!

I learned more about human nature and how it effects ministry and church life, and how leaders need to work with it realistically in a few months with Paul than in years of Bible College. I thank God for the gift of time and the abundance of knowledge I received from Paul. In a strange twist of fate, Paul pastored that very same State College Assembly of God mentioned above (as well as serving as the Asst. Supt. of the Penn-Del District), and from which he went on to his eternal reward August 11, 2011.

Robert Owen
My wife grew up going to church. She was saved when only four years old! When she was 12, her family started attending South Hills A/G in Pittsburgh, pastored by Robert Owen. He’s a Welshman, which means he loves to sing and has a great accent! The first time I sat in his church, I was visiting my new fiancée’s family. In a sanctuary filled to capacity, he looked right at me from the pulpit, and told me to take the gum out of my mouth (evidently, he didn’t want to look out and see a bunch of cows chewing their cud). Talk about seeker sensitivity! I don’t remember when, exactly, I got over it. ;-)

For years his church was the largest congregation in the Penn-Del District, yet no matter how large it got, he and Miriam would stand at the back door greeting everyone by name when they left the service. Even in a room packed with hundreds and hundreds of people, the place still felt like a familiar place, like family. He’s taught me so many valuable lessons about call, ministry, commitment, integrity, and generosity, I wouldn’t know where to begin enumerating them. Thank you, Pastor Owen, you served the cause of Christ until the end of your days (November 19, 2012) and planted seeds in the hearts of men.

There you have it: the ministers that have meant so much to me. Their service was of benefit to thousands, I’m just grateful I was one of them. So, props to the preachers, may blessing continue to pour forth from you even long after you're gone.

How Not to Argue with Fellow Believers

How should Christians discuss their differences? There is a thought, not unpopular, and not without long historical precedent, that debate is the way. That's predicated upon the precept that someone is right and someone is wrong and that formal argument can get to the truth of which is which. I cannot disagree more. Not only may both be wrong, but even if one party is more right than the other, it does not necessarily follow that it even matters. If the argument is over something that does not undermine a believer's essential nature as a person born of the Spirit, it cannot possibly matter.

I think Calvinism is fundamentally a scripturally untenable system of doctrine. To my understanding, it assaults the character of God, says of him what he clearly does not say of himself, makes nonsensical most of the commands and entreaties in scripture, and misses entirely the ultimate aim of God in creating man. That may sound like a big deal, but I know a few Calvinists personally. They love the Word as much as I, love the brothers as much as I, serve Christ as fully as do I, and love the Spirit as much as I.

I am not likely to ever accept their approach to the "doctrines of grace," but I will heartily accept them. I may discuss our differences with them, but I am not looking to brand them as heretics or nonbelievers for their doctrine if they believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead and they are trusting him as their means of salvation. That would be a divisive spirit that refused to lay down itself for the brethren. Someone who shows other believers no grace is in no position to lecture anyone else on what grace is.

Debates are the means that heathens use to deal with opposing viewpoints. Christians operating in some field with heathens may need to debate those heathens, or even with other Christians also working in those fields, but Christians should not deal with matters of faith and conduct in the same way. Debates are rarely, if ever, about helping either side see the other's viewpoint better, or even helping someone see something clearer. Debates are about ego, about winning and losing, even suppressing a viewpoint if possible. How is such a format remotely acceptable to the Christian community? 

Our discussions should be respectful, aimed at edification not destruction, and if there is any prejudice, let it be on the side of deference and esteem. I have a prejudice of my own in this regard to this subject: when an argumentative, insulting, smug Christian looking for a fight rather than trying to help a brother, starts sounding off, everything they say sounds like nothing but a clanging cymbal to me. If one cannot rein in his tongue in deference to a brother, that person is at best an immature novice, and at worst a wolf in sheep's clothing. He understands nothing! 

I could care less how many degrees a person has, or how many books he or she may have written, or how many fans line up to see that person, if they mistreat a brother during a disputation, their words are empty. My suspicion is that so is their confession of faith. If we don't love a brother whom we can see, we certainly don't love God whom we cannot see. If you want to talk to me, talk to me, but leave your attitude at the door. Otherwise, we really don't have anything to talk about.

What Does It Prophet?

God has demonstrated throughout history a desire and willingness to inspire people with his Spirit. From Adam in the Garden, to the Israelites in Sinai, to the prophets of the Old Testament, to the affirmations of Paul, the scriptures confirm God's desire to inspire his people with his Spirit. Only the separation of humankind from God due to sin frustrated that desire through the ages. As a result, only a few well-chosen people were ever inspired by that revelatory Spirit.

That is, until sin was dealt with broadly through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Since Christ expunged sin and reconciled to God all who put their trust in him, God's desire to inspire can be pursued freely in all who believe (even if only in part). Ultimately, God's desire to inspire will be fulfilled at the end of time when the redeemed will share that revelatory Spirit fully. Then it will be said of us that we know [him] even as we are known [by him].

The prophets of the Old Testament had a job, but only for a season. Some of them had great and memorable gifts, some were attended by signs and wonders, and others were less notable in these regards. All of them spoke for God to a people that could not and did not want to hear from God themselves. They were relatively rare amidst the community of faith. As impressive a lot as they were, none of them had the experience of the Spirit that anyone in Christ's kingdom does.

They were selected by God for their labor as a necessary part of bringing all things to that ripe moment when Christ would appear and then they would no longer be needed. There are things that Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel (among others) prophesied that have not yet come to pass, so their work continues in a certain respect. When Jesus said they prophesied until John, he did not mean that their words suddenly fell to the ground, but that the function they served ceased (as did the law's).

The prophets of the New Testament have a different job, but only until Jesus comes back. Some have more noticeable gifts than others do, some even become church leaders. Moses' inspired longing is answered among them, for even though there are only some in the church that are actually prophets, all of God's people can prophesy. Prophets no longer speak exclusively for God to people who can't and don't hear from him themselves, now they speak that which others can confirm and everyone can affirm.

New Testament prophets are not meant to be rare, for their service is needed in the meeting of the saints. It is best to have a bevy of them for the purpose of weighing what is prophesied. To squelch this needed gift, or to make it so difficult to operate in as to effectively bar it, is just shooting ourselves in the feet. Quenching the Spirit by despising this gift can only make the church poorer and prophets nothing!