Brian and I have been working through a series on our church’s mission and vision.  I was blessed to have the opportunity to address the third point in our vision: we will be a community for accepting grace.

Lot’s of good feedback on the sermon, particularly the video. For those looking for the video, here it is below. I’ll post the sermon audio as soon as it is online.

This really isn’t following where I wanted to go, but part of the slowness of posting has been because of an increase in church stuff to handle, which really is a blessing. We’re currently in the process of trying to appoint additional shepherds, which we desperately need, and while we’re not having the evangelists do it, I think we’ve come up with a bit of a process that places more emphasis on the shepherding side of things.

I’ll cover my thoughts on shepherds vs. elders vs. board of directors vs. group of controlling/frustrating/spiritually stifling men later. For our process, we distributed nomination forms to the church body to get feedback from them on whom should serve as a shepherd. Unlike the traditional popularity vote method where we ask people to write names on blank pieces of paper, we instead had the respondents fill out a questionnaire for each nominee. There were seven questions, and those were:

• In what ways have you witnessed his ability to shepherd God’s flock?
• Why do you feel this man should serve as a shepherd for our church family?
• Why would you go to this man if you were in need of prayer?
• How has this man’s teaching impacted you spiritually?
• Why would you accept accountability from this man for spiritual growth, giving, ministry involvement, church attendance, etc.?
• Why does this man come to mind when you think of godly men?
• How has this man served you or your family?

This was a lot of work to ask of people, but the seriousness of the task dictated this approach. The results of which have provided us with a much better look at the spiritual side of the men that we will ask to fill a very spiritual office.

The whole reason I wrote this post was because of one answer on a form. I’ll totally avoid sharing the identity of the nominee or nominator, but this answer to “Why would you go to this man if you were in need of prayer?” really struck a cord with me:

Because of his humbleness I feel he would pour his heart out to God for me.

What an incredible testimony to the heart of the man being nominated! It simultaneously made me desire this man to serve as a shepherd AND inspired me to try to be a better Christian. This is the type of man I need leading me personally… and the church needs him, too.

My particular spiritual heritage is one that is based on trying to restore the church of the 1st century following Christ’s death. When thinking about church conceptually, I frequently step back and look at what we’ve accomplished compared to the goal of restoring a New Testament church. Honestly, I don’t think we’ve done a very good job. In fact, I don’t know if a majority of our churches are anywhere near what the church in the New Testament looks like.

That’s a pretty bold statement, and probably one that creates a lot of tension for some who read this blog. In keeping with the theme of the previous post, however, I think that many of us are comfortable feeling that we’ve restored the “visible” aspects of the New Testament church. We have communion once a week, we don’t use instruments, we don’t allow women to be in authority, etc. We look at those visible, outward things that define us as congregations and feel pretty good about restoring the New Testament church.

The other side of the coin is that we haven’t done a very good job restoring the invisible side of New Testament Christianity. The part that talks about being in each others lives on a daily basis. The part that calls us to a real commitment and dedication to Christ. The part that is relational enough that if a brother sins against us or falls in sin that we feel okay with going and talking to them about it instead of talked about them.

My heritage has placed a high value on Acts 2, especially verse 38. We forget, however, that the chapter doesn’t end there. There is an entire section on fellowship that follows, although we’ve played that down some.

Acts 2:42-47 – ⁴²They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. ⁴³Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. ⁴⁴All the believers were together and had everything in common. ⁴⁵Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. ⁴⁶Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, ⁴⁷praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

I’ve been hard pressed to find a congregation that lives these verses out in a way that indicates we’ve restored New Testament Christianity. Because of our fixation on the visible side of church, many have looked at verse 47 and surmised that something must be wrong with the church today because there are no longer people being added to the church on a daily basis. They usually follow that with some critique of church members and their lack of sincerity in faith because they’re not “doing evangelism”. Sometimes they try to dream up a plan to pack people into the churches, and the number of methods for advertising and outreach are limitless.

I would argue that the solution is much less complex, however more difficult. If the church would focus on the invisible characteristics and behave like the the church in verses 42-46, the stuff in verse 47 would take care of itself.

What do you think?

One of the biggest challenges I’ve experienced with church is the overlap between the spiritual and the physical.  Ideally, everything in church is a spiritual matter.  However, there are lots of places that physical separates from the spiritual at its core.  What color should the song books be?  Should we have song books?  What type of ministry staff should we have? How should our church organization function?  These may be tied to spiritual matters, and they may support spiritual function, but in and of themselves these are not spiritual issues to be resolved.

The author of Hebrews, whoever he or she is, illustrates this convergence in chapter 12 when discussing the new assembly that Christians have come to.  Specifically, 12:22-23 says:

You have come… to the church of the firstborn whose names are written in heaven.

There is something conceptual in this passage to process about church.  Church exists simultaneously in two spheres: visible and invisible.  There are visible manifestations of church, such as humans that are currently on earth being a part of it.  Then there are invisible parts of church, which would be similar to the names being written in heaven.  A good majority of the manifestations overlap, or co-exist on the visible and invisible plane at the same time.  There are some aspects of the invisible church, however, that those in the visible sphere will not see, and there are some parts of the visible church that do not correlate to the invisible.

In getting my head around this, I’ve started to borrow Wayne Grudem’s understanding that the visible church is the church as man sees it and the invisible church is the church as God sees it.  Thinking of it in this way helps me figure out where this whole church leadership thing is going anyway.  Our job is to make the visible look and act as much like the invisible as possible.  This, of course, is an impossible task.

And this is where much of the conflict in church comes from.  The gap between the visible and the invisible is where the discrepancies are revealed, and is the location of the sparks that set churches ablaze.

Historically, there have been some significant debates/fights/conflicts over invisible church type issues.  Was Jesus really God’s son? Is baptism necessary for salvation? How does the trinity affect the church on earth? In recent times (last 50-100 years?), though, a vast majority of our conflicts and issues have been over visible church type things.  The sad thing is, issues that affect the visible church negatively eventually have an effect on the invisible as well. How many people have you heard say they were tired of church?  How many do you know whom have left Jesus because they found His church to be corrupt?  The damage is significant.

So, how do we work in the visible church so that the invisible is emphasized and advocated for?  More difficult, how to we act when we’re thinking about the invisible church and people around us are focused on the visible?  That’s a tough one to work through.

After a longer than intended hiatus for me to finish up work on my master’s degree, I’m now back to working on this study.  The first thing I want to work though is a conceptual look at what the church is.  Lots of people would probably think of church as a building… a place that people go for certain spiritual activities or to request help, either spiritual or physical.  The assumptions people make about church never cease to surprise me.  We had someone call the office recently looking for help moving across town to another location.  She doesn’t attend here, but figured it would be a good place to go to find people who will give her a truck and some people for a few hours.  While this is a viable opportunity to serve and share Jesus, are churches supposed to sit around and have people on call to do all the little things that people ask for?

It becomes clear very early in our look at this topic that the understanding of church varies depending on your position in and perspective of church.  People outside the church view church differently than people inside the church, some in good ways and some in bad.  If we’re going to correct some of the misguided understandings of church, which are held by people inside and outside the church, what are we going to tell them in response?  If church isn’t about doing odd jobs in the community, what is it about?

The next few posts will look at a very conceptual view of the church in an attempt to lay some of this ground work.  Still not sure where we’ll end up, but looking forward to it.

I didn’t forget the series that I’m working on.  I spent a week at Michigan Christian Youth Camp last week and getting prepared to leave and making up for being gone has taken up much of my time.  We’ll get back at it in a few days… after I write four papers I’ve been stalling on.

Until then, check out my somewhat creepy new widget in the sidebar.  Using the wonders of modern technology, you can now see approximately where I am at any given time.  Weird?  Potentially dangerous?  What do you think?

As I’m working on my first bit of postable study on the topic of church, I’ve already run into a few issues that I thought I’d bring up.  This is probably just a little bit of insecurity that is making me feel like I have to explain before I start, but I think they are valid points.

First, I’m going to be blogging about something I haven’t figured out yet.  This poses a problem for me.  I like to blog about things that I feel like I have figured out.  I’m worried that my posts will be incomplete in concept and content… and they probably will be.  This is a journey that I’d like to go on with those who happen to read this blog, and because of that I’m going to introduce incomplete concepts into the blogosphere and let all of you help me figure them out.  Please comment, especially if you disagree or if you think I’ve missed something.  My only request is that you be nice.  Don’t make me use my admin privileges.

Second, I’m going to be blogging about something that my subconscious think I have completely figured out.  This is going to cause me considerable issues as I approach the topic of church.  If there was one tool I wish I could obtain it would be complete objectivity.  Unfortunately, my perspective is clouded with a lifetime of experiences with church that are impossible for me to forget.  My presuppositions will constantly be there, dragging me down a familiar path.  I want to fight against this tendency and try to see this material as new and as objectively as possible.

Third, I’ll be publishing as I research.  Typically, I’ll spend a lot of time researching a topic and then edit some final piece for publication.  In this study, however, I’ll be hammering it out as I study, which will and can lead to a sloppy and messy presentation.  If you’re willing to tolerate ADD-type writing, abandoned concepts, and dangling bits of information, then I’m willing to produce such a piece of work for you.

Thanks for coming on the journey.  The next post will begin a simple look at the use of the word “church” in the Bible.

I am an avid overpreparer.  My wife might call it being a control freak, but I really don’t like surprises.  Preparation and laying out a good plan are key to a smooth trip.  Before family trips in the days before online mapping services (how did we do it?), I would study the atlas to determine the best routes and project stops.  I’d make note of mile markers and exit numbers, all in an effort to have a smooth ride.  The days of Google Maps and GPS have completely changed a lot of that, though.

As I get ready to start this study on church, I figure I needed to get my tools together and have a look at the map for my study.  So far, I’ve collected the following as primary.  Please keep in mind that I want to do a lot of this as exegetical as possible, so books on church and articles will be used in a supplementary fashion.  Books on general theology, however, will be included because of the broad brush with which they paint.

Here’s the list.  What else would you have me add?

• The Bible (duh?) – NIV as my main study Bible.
• Supplementary English translations – NASB, KJV, as secondary translations, numerous other translations as tertiary.
• Greek New Testament
• BDAG Lexicon, 3rd edition
• English/Greek interlinear (because it’s faster for cross referencing than the Greek is)
• Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
• Bible Doctrine – Wayne Grudem
• Christian Doctrine – Milliard Erickson
• BibleWorks 6
• IVP Dictionary Series: NT Backgrounds, Paul and His Letters, Later NT, Jesus and the Gospels
• ISBE, IDB, ABD

That’s it for starters.  I’ll refer to them as I proceed through my stuff.  I know some of you wanted to see “Churches of Christ: a Biblical Ecclesiology for Today” on the list, but I’m not looking for conclusions… I’m looking for study and revelation.  I may refer to it occassionally, but it won’t be on my desk like these other items will.

Any glaring omissions you can see?

I came to an incredible realization while at Abilene Christian University for my practical skills and theory class.  Well, at least it was incredible to me. I’ve lamented here frequently that I get frustrated with “church” and how little it looks like what the New Testament says it should.  I’ve whined and moaned a little, but mostly I’ve tried to be open and honest and searching.  The realization at ACU had to do with getting the very heart of the matter that I was dealing with.  As with any problem, it’s hard to deal with it before you name it, and last week I got a name for my problem.

Some time back I did a series of posts on the book FireStorm: Preventing and Overcoming Church Conflict by Ron Susek.  In that series, I discuss Susek’s belief that church conflict is generated in some degree by unmet expectations in key areas of leadership.  When expectations are unmet, especially in the areas of truth, relationships, integrity, and mission, dead branches of kindling build up just waiting for the right spark to set the church ablaze in conflict.  It may seem sort of elementary, but unmet expectations in any area can lay the ground work for conflict to build later.

Now, tie into this something else that I, personally, have struggled with.  I pursued a graduate level study in conflict in a major way because everywhere I went there seemed to be conflict.  One of my mentors has compared me to an abused spouse that subconsciously seeks out dysfunctional relationships that are more likely to lead to abuse.  I thought I was being humble when I sarcastically remarked that “I couldn’t figure out what the constant is in all these conflicts”, insinuating it was ME that was the conflict.  In a recent lunch with one of my co-ministers, Rubel Shelly, he responded to that by saying, “You’re far too arrogant.  Those conflict existed long before you got there.”  I laughed so hard I choked on my chips and salsa.

Here’s what I figured out.  My problem in not with individuals in multiple locations, although that is part of it.  My problem is not with some systemic dysfunction that seems to plague Churches of Christ in particular, although that is definitely a contributing factor.  My problem is with unmet expectations.  My conflict, in and of itself, transcends people and place and is actually with the unmet expectations that lie between the “concept” of church and the “practice” of church.

I know this sort of sounds like I’m repeating something simple, but this was a deep revelation to me for two reasons.  First, it allows me to realize that those unmet expectations, while in a way are everyone’s fault, are definitely no one person’s fault in particular.  In fact, the gap between “concept” and “practice” is wide enough and long standing enough that it works against anyone that wants to actively change it.  People like myself that try to insert themselves into unhealthy systems are run over and trampled, not by people but by the system itself.  Similar to the GM internal memo (thanks Jim Martin for the source) by Elmer Johnson that was quoted in the New York Times, “We have vastly underestimated how deeply ingrained are the cultural rigidities that hamper our ability to execute.” Understanding this allows me to step back to a bigger picture place and extend grace to everyone that is unknowingly, or perhaps knowingly, being pushed along by the system. (Thanks Joey Cope for the lecture on reverence!)

Second, I realized that I don’t have a good understanding of where the expectations are not being met.  It’s one thing to say, “We’re doing something wrong.”  It’s an entirely different thing to say, “Here’s what we’re doing wrong.”  One is empowering (knowledge), while another only promotes unhealthy cycles of conflict (ignorance).  Getting to the heart of the matter (striving for transcendence) is key in solving the problems.  The great thing about this understanding is that it gives me a handle on my issue and a starting point to working through it.

So, where do I go next with my understanding?  First and foremost, I’ve decided to do a detailed study of the theology of church.  I need to know what the standard is before I can understand where the expectations are not being met.  I imagine this study could take years and years, but I think I’ll start to gain insight fairly quickly.  This will be the context for a majority of my blog entries over the coming weeks and months, so you’ll have an idea of what to expect.

I’ll leave you with a real life story that I experienced this week that is sort of my personal theme as I begin this study.  I’ll try to hide as many details as possible, but the power of the situation should be evident (it was to me or I wouldn’t be posting it, now would I?). I spoke this week with a ministry leader that had a 15-20 minute presenation they wanted to make during an upcoming Sunday a.m. worship assembly.  After discussing it with another co-minister, we suggested we could replace the sermon that week and just have this presentation.  One of the workers in the ministry that is making the presentation came to me and the following conversation ensued:

Worker: Are we really going to cancel the sermon for our worship service?
Me: I suppose we could.  What would be wrong with it?
Worker: There’s just something about that that I’m not comfortable with at all.
Me:  Why do we have a sermon on Sunday morning anyway?
Worker: Tradition?
Me: There’s just something about that that I’m not comfortable with at all.
Worker: I guess I just walked into that one.
Me: I think we both did.

Thanks for joining me on what might be a great journey. Please be prayful for me as I seek to understand God’s desire for church, both mine and yours, and for my life in the church.

There is a piece of paper that has sat on my desk for the better part of a year. It sits by my phone, and I’ve been using it as a coaster for the last several months. It wasn’t until a few weeks ago that the paper came to my attention when the humidity was high enough to staurate the poor thing.

On this piece of paper are written three requirements for organzational commitment on the part of the members of the organization. These factors are required for people to be and remain healthy members of any organization. This could be businesses, clubs, educational institutions, and churches.

I wish I could remember where I took this information from, but I failed to write it down. At any rate, here are the nuggets from my notepad turned coaster:

Affective organzational commitment cosists of three factors:
- A belief in the goals and values of the organization.
- A willingness to put forth effort on behalf of the organization.
- A desire to remain a member of the organization.

How do these factors play in where you are?