Elements of Discipleship

[Note: if you're a BCS student looking for the quiz, it's the post AFTER this one... ]

With that bit of house cleaning out of the way ...

As many of you know, I've recently been hired as Director (soon to be Pastor) of Discipleship at Auburn Alliance Church. In thinking about how to lead our Discipleship ministries into one Discipleship ministry with many facets, I've been trying to condense my thoughts on the subject. I'd love your input on a few thoughts...

I'm increasingly persuaded that our role as a local church body - any local church body - is to lead people to Jesus and to teach them to follow. I'm not arguing that this is the responsibility of the pastors/staff - it's the responsibility of the church (for those of you playing along at home, that all of us in His Kingdom). So don't take this as my thoughts about a pastor's job. Anyway ...

It seems to me that discipleship (that is, learning to follow Jesus) should involve all of the following: Fellowship, Prayer, Bible Study, Service to others,Justice and Mercy, Connection to our roots.

I suspect Fellowship, Prayer, and Bible Study will seem fairly obvious.

By service to others I mean those kind acts that teach us we are here to serve, not to be served. As simple as raking a neighbor's leaves or changing a single mom's oil. This is fundamental, no?

By justice and mercy I mean involvement in the "bigger" issues in our world. Whether it's volunteering at a Crisis Pregnancy Center or an AIDS hospice, working with ONE or raising money for a local refugee ministry. The issues are out there: sex trafficking, abortion, racism, extreme poverty, environmentalism, etc... It seems to me that working to improve God's world and the lives of His creations is part and parcel of learning to better follow Jesus.

Connection to our roots ... what is that, exactly?! I mean a few things here. Certainly communion and baptism - these roots run all the way to the New Testament and serve to bind us to the Church universal in a palpable way. But I also mean remembrance. Learning about and then remembering those whose shoulders our faith stands on is a valuable exercise in learning to follow Jesus. It encourages me to know that Martin Luther needed encouragement. It inspires me to hear about Jim Elliot. I causes me to pause and take seriously the sin within me when I think about those who've stumbled along their own journey.

So, assuming I'm on the right track so far, I'm toying with this list of statements as guides for a Discipleship ministry:

Love in community
Pray at all times
Know the Word
Serve our neighbors
Seek justice and mercy
Remember our roots

What do you think? Am I missing anything obvious? Am I making too much of something too little? What have your local churches done to guide and direct the process of discipleship?

I'd love to hear your thoughts. I have more of my own forthcoming ...

Hatushili

Read More......

The secret value of Children's Ministry

Like so many other pastors, I sometimes find myself pondering some of the less than encouraging statistics reported about the Church in America. One that particularly bothers me is that (per Barna) 2 out of 3 teens involved in a local church will graduate from high school and rarely even grace the doors of a church building again until they marry and have children.

How is it possible that we're failing this badly? Surely the local church alone can't bear all of the responsibility, but just as surely we must bear some. We spend gobs of time, effort, and money on Youth Pastors, youth ministries, youth centers, etc... but to seemingly little long-term effect. Is it perhaps time to rethink things...

I have wondered out loud for some time now ... wondered if good CM isn't part of the solution. Hear me out for a moment.

CM is typically handled one of two ways in most American churches. A) It's left as a strictly volunteer ministry, believing that good CM "just happens". B) It's loaded with all the latest bells and whistles; Disney-land meets daycare with a Bible theme.

It's my considered opinion that neither is the right way to go.

Good CM is designed and led to be so. It focuses on both evangelism and discipleship; that is, it leads kids to Jesus and then teaches them how to follow Him. When done right, we're building a foundation for future, further growth and maturity. When done well, we're crafting safeguards against many of the problems common to kids when hormones and peer-pressure really start to weigh in.

It seems to me that the standard mantra about Youth Ministries ("teens these days face so much more difficulty than we ever did") misses the real point: teens these days were generally given no significant foundation by the local church when they were young to cope with and conquer the trials in their lives.

If that's the case - and can anyone really argue otherwise? - then why do we continue to repeat the same flawed formula? Why is it that most churches will hire virtually every other "specialty" pastor before thinking about hiring a Children's Pastor? We keep doing things the same way yet expect different results...

I know, I know ... there are certainly other issues here. For example, what about the time-honoured debate over how to care for the teens with roots in our local churches and the teens that simply show up looking for love and encouragement? Plainly we have an obligation to both.

What about parents? Surely I'm not letting them off the hook! Mom and Dad have the primary responsibility for leading their own children to Jesus and teaching them how to follow Him; the local church works to partner with them. But how are Mom and Dad supposed to know how? If the local church doesn't model and teach these principles, how will Mom and Dad ever stumble across them? Oh, some will for sure. But the majority? We will have failed to serve them and failed to serve their children.

I'm not being too idealistic here - I have no delusions that good CM will vaccinate kids against all the troubles that beset most teens. But it's obvious that what the local churches in America have been doing with regard to making disciples of kids has been an almost universal failure.

Isn't it time to seriously consider rethinking our methods?

Hatushili

Read More......

Missional training

As most of you know, I'm absolutely convinced that the church in America has messed up the very nature of Children's Ministry (CM) almost beyond repair. We have coddled them, we have entertained them, we have over-simplified everything for them. In the process we have also implicitly taught them that the local church exists for them.

One of the reasons I'm most honoured to be the Children's Pastor at our local church is the chance to change this, at least within our church family. We reached what I think I might look back on as a milestone the other day...

During our Wednesday night children's ministry, we began collecting items for our local nursing home. Children of all ages brought candies, cards, chapstick and other goodies to the church building. Then last week those same children decorated white gift bags and made Valentine cards for the residents of the nursing home.

So far, pretty standard fare for CM. What we did next has - I pray - laid the foundation for training our children to think missionally. We took the older kids from this group - a Sunday School class - to the nursing home to personally deliver our gift bags and Valentine cards. Twelve young souls - most of them in 4th and 5th grade - travelled the halls of the nursing home in groups of 6, guided to rooms of residents that could use some cheering up. The group I was with spoke with a lady recovering from the nasty cold that's been going around in these parts. She asked me to pray with her before I left the room. We were given the real honour of meeting and talking with a WWII vet, a man that was on the shores of Normandy 2 days after the invasion! We met a sweet lady that shard the same name as one of our children there that day. We spoke with a man barely able to speak.

What didn't we do? We didn't preach. We didn't insert the token gospel tract into their bags. We also didn't hide our love for Jesus. We didn't hide the fact that we were representing a local church. We wore our faith on our sleeves yet did not wield it as a weapon.

I couldn't be more proud of these, "my" kids. They shared the love of Jesus. They encouraged lonely hearts. They were - I think - challenged themselves by some of what they saw. They advanced God's glory.

On top of all that, they're learning first-hand that the life of the local church is not about being served. It's not about consumerism. It's not about what a local church can do for you. It's about service. As our Lord did, we came to serve those residents.

My great hope is that we've begun what will be a long-term relationship with this nursing home. I hope to get these children and others back to visit them regularly. We're already planning to tell the real story of St. Patrick with them sometime next month.

I know it seems small in so many ways, but I really think we're on to something here. Your thoughts?

Hatushili

Read More......

Reverend?!?

No offense to people like "the Reverend Billy Graham" or others like him, but why oh why is "reverend" still an acceptable title for pastors?!

I don't really care much how people refer to me. As a Children's Pastor, I get all kinds of names. Some of my kids call me Pastor Nathan, some just Pastor. Some call me Mr. Nathan, others Mr. Hyde. A few simply call me Nathan. Their parents are much the same: though most just call me Nathan, some call me Pastor Nathan and a few simply Pastor.

No one, however, calls me "Reverend". There's a good reason for that - I've specifically asked that no one use that title...

There are two reasons for this preference. First, I'm no more "revered" than anyone else. Our standard is Jesus, not any person running around on His earth. Like you, I'm a sinner saved by grace. I just happen to be a pastor.

Second, it reinforces that very misguided notion that the profession of pastor is more "revered" than any other profession. There's nothing more holy, more godly, more special, more important, more ... anything about being a pastor. We are each called to service; mine is to serve as a pastor. Yours isn't. So what!

Okay, back to the impetus for this post. As you saw in the image at the top, I received a piece of mail today addressed to "Reverend Nathan Hyde". I assume it was so addressed because it came from Operation Christmas Child, a ministry led by the son of "Reverend Billy Graham". I assure you that I did not ask to be addressed as Reverend!

I type this post with the sincere hope that I'll never see another piece of mail addressed to "Reverend Nathan Hyde".

Hatushili

Read More......

Baby Dedication Day!

I had the privilege of officiating my first baby dedication today. [In the future, I'll be doing them jointly with our elder of family life, but he was out of town for the weekend.]

It was a great experience, and it got me to thinking about the nature of community again...

As I navigated through the dedication of this beautiful little boy, I reminded the family that they were being dedicated too - it wasn't just about the little one.

Just as importantly, I reminded our people that children are people too (a phrase I use all the time, and intentionally) and that we have a responsibility to help them raise this little one to know Jesus and to learn how to follow Him.

But what does that mean, exactly? Clearly parents are the spiritual leaders of their children, and fathers are the spiritual leaders of their homes. But it's just as clear from Scripture that we're a family - a single body in Christ striving for His purposes.

I wonder if we haven't allowed the American "right to privacy" to overly permeate our parenting. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating the ol' "it takes a village" per se. It's just that too often (in my experience) we don't seek the help and wisdom that our fellow Christians could offer. We're too proud, or too shy, or ... too something. Always too something...

Am I - as the Children's Pastor - modelling the kind of attitude I feel the Bible calls for? I'm not sure. Of course I'd like to say yes ... but I don't know if that's completely honest.

I'm not even sure exactly what I'm calling for. I just know that I'm tired of watching well-meaning Christian parents struggle with issues about which other parents in our assembly could share wisdom. Maybe we're too closed off - not connected enough. Maybe it hasn't even occurred to these parents that these family resources are available to them.

Perhaps that's where to start - to at least make parents aware that they can both receive and offer wisdom with regard to the struggles of other parents.

Today, that's just what happened as we dedicated this little soul and his family to Christ in the presence of His followers. May we take seriously the affirmations made this day. Too much depends upon it to do otherwise.

Hatushili

Read More......

Spiritual Vertigo

A former pastor of mine used to speak a lot about balance. "What's so often lacking in the local church", he often said, "is balance." I have to agree. You and I both could list countless examples of how this is true, but today I want to talk about one particular example that I'm personally familiar with ... but it's a positive example!

As most of you know, I'm increasingly convinced that my home church is a very special place. Some of the usual hang-ups that often infect local churches have been effectively warded off (to date!). One in particular is the oft-noticed "worship wars" of other families.

Our worship pastor is that rare combination of a stellar musician and a humble servant leader. He makes a conscious effort to find a balance between what the more Modern section of our demographic might prefer (more polish; less improv) and what the more Postmodern section prefers (less polish; more improv). [Note: as usual, I'm referring to cultural Postmodernity in this context.]

As with any balancing act, he sometimes errs too far one way or the other. But there seems to be an abundance of grace given, knowing that this is how balancing usually works.

If it's true (and I believe it is) that Modern/Postmodern is the biggest cultural rift in America since ... ever, then this will be the most difficult period in our history to strike the right balance. We've always had issues of musical preference, but I would contend that they've never been couched in such significant cultural differences. In other words, those of us that would have local churches with both Modern and Postmodern family members will have to strive even harder to keep a sound and healthy balance.

The funny thing is that very few of us in this local body would ever talk about this issue in terms of Modern/Postmodern understandings and sensitivities. But that doesn't change the fact that grace is given and balance sought.

To God be the glory, in all aspects of our corporate worship.

Hatushili

Read More......

Wednesday night stuff

I'm in the process of researching some of the various programs out there for Wed. night church programming for kids. We'll be expanding what we do on Wed. nights at my home church, so I'm trying to figure out the best and wisest way to go.

Here's what I've found and what I know, but I need your help...

After a cursory search on the good ol' internet, I've found the following:

1. CEF/Good News Club
2. AWANA
3. Word of Life/Olympians
4. Faith Weavers
5. Royal Rangers
6. Pioneer Club

I know a fair bit about the first two (especially AWANA), and have a passing familiarity with WOL. I know the last three only by name.

So ... if any of you know something you think I should know to make a wise decision, I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to either comment here or email me.

Hatushili

Read More......

Family Sundays

As most of you know, I'm always trying to figure out ways to foster a more authentic sense of community in local churches. Over at my home church we're going to try something different that I think will really help on a number of fronts...

If you look at a calendar, you'll discover that there are four (sometimes five) months in a year that have five Sundays. I doesn't take much imagination to realize that this regularly creates scheduling difficulties for Children's Ministry workers. You usually have volunteers that agree to work one Sunday per month ... but suddenly you have an extra week but not extra workers! Churches choose to resolve the issue in many various (and fully functional) ways. We are electing to do something a little out of the norm.

On these "extra" Sundays, we're declaring Family Sunday. We'll not have our normal Children's Ministries, but instead we'll have everyone all together in the main assembly area. This will create some challenges, for sure - but we think the rewards will far outweigh the difficulties. When you put them on a scale, it looks something like this:

Challenges:
1. It's different - there will be a certain amount of adjustment to things just plain old "not normal"!
2. It will be louder - there's no question that having children in this setting will create more noise and a little bit of chaos, too.
3. It will create some tension - some parents will be uncomfortable with the fear that perhaps their child will do something embarrassing or distracting.

Advantages:
1. It will foster authentic community. Real community is multi-generational, yet we typically exclude an entire generation from our corporate worship times. Family Sunday will be truly multi-generational.
2. It will weave children into the life of the church. Kids need to know that they're valuable and that they have a legitimate place in the life of the church. Involving them in "big church" will help bridge this gap.
3. It will help disciple our children. For starters, our children will have an opportunity to see a large group of adults (including Mom and Dad) worship together. It's hard to over-estimate the value of this experience. Also, it will allow many followers of Christ to share with the children in a variety of ways.
4. It will force us out of our comfort zone. At the risk of sounding harsh, I am increasingly convinced that many American church-goers keep a god in the closet and its name is "Comfort". We get in our ruts and we get comfortable. Doing something this out of the ordinary will be a healthy experience for us now and again.
5. It will involve more people in corporate ministry. In order to keep younger children involved and interested, we'll be doing things in smaller pieces. Instead of one 45 minute sermon, we'll have two sermons of perhaps 15-20 minutes each. Instead of one long set of corporate worship, we'll break out into singing in spurts throughout the entire time. Instead of just a few faces on the platform, we'll be involving many more. Instead of mostly 35-55 year old people, we'll have a more legitimate multi-generational feel - we're striving for the very best of a family reunion feeling.

Mind you, this is all in theory at this stage! Who knows if things will really work out as I'm suggesting. Our first Family Sunday will be in just a few weeks - I'll post to let you know how it works out.

In the meantime, do any of you do something like this? Have any ideas to share with me? I'd gladly give a (cyber) penny for your thoughts!

Hatushili

Read More......

The LORD provides!

I've been wanting to chronicle this story for some weeks now, but I couldn't (for reasons I'll not get into here).

Now I'm finally at liberty to say that ...

I am officially the Children/Family Pastor at the church we began attending last year!

I can't begin to express how excited and energized I am by all of this. As time permits, I'll fill you in with more of the details. For the moment, please continue to pray for me...

My two primary prayer concerns:

My position is part-time, with the hope of becoming full-time. For now, I need to continue to find other sources of income. I'm doing some substitute teaching, some work at the chainsaw shop, and some building trades/construction stuff too! As you can likely guess, I'm really enjoying the diversity of my schedule these days. But the fact remains that I need to stay organized and I need to continue to find ways each week to meet our family's budgetary needs.

Also, I have tons of names and faces to connect, and perhaps just as many ideas and notions to consider. There's a lot of positive momentum building there, and a great many very concerned parents. In short, it feels like the perfect spot to join in. But having said that, I still must successfully navigate the challenges of this new position.

If I can impose upon you to pray for these two issues, I'll be indebted to you.

Hatushili

Read More......

Yet another reason...

If you read this blog regularly, you know I'm a stickler for sound hermeneutics. [If you'd like to catch up, click here, here, here and here.]

Of the great many reasons why sound hermeneutics are so important, let me add another. I recently had a conversation with a friend who felt personally targeted by a sermon. I don't know enough of the situation to say whether I think this opinion is true or not, but for the moment that's not the point. Let me explain...

The sermon in question was taken from Luke, specifically the story of the sending of the 72 disciples. [Click here for the text of Luke 10.] Rather than focusing on the more obvious parts of the text, this particular sermon came to "for the worker deserves his pay" and camped out. The context is so obvious that I probably don't even need to tell you that "the worker" in this text is the travelling Christian preacher and that the implication is vocational Christian workers deserve to be paid fairly and reasonably.

But apparently that's not what the sermon focused on. I'm told that this particular preacher made the text into some kind of "our Christian tradesman should not be taken advantage of" mantra. While that premise may well be true, the text says nothing of the sort. The point of the story - the reason Luke was inspired to include it in the canon of Scripture - has everything to do with these 72 disciples.

'Not a big deal', you might argue. And you'd have a point. It's not much of a stretch to make the text of Luke 10 address ethical principals of dealing with Christian tradesman within your particular local assembly. The trouble in this case was the implications that were being perceived - whether intended or not.

When we stray from accurate exposition of the Scriptures, we sometimes unintentionally open up Pandora's box. We open ourselves to accusations of heresy, inaccuracy, bully preaching, rambling, unpreparedness, having and agenda, etc...

My heart goes out to my friend who felt attacked by this sermon. The point is not so much whether that feeling was intended by the preacher or not. The point is that sound hermeneutics would have avoided the situation altogether.

Hatushili

Read More......

Who gets to speak for God? (part 3 of 3)

We started this conversation here, then continued it here, in case you're keeping track.

In those two posts, I basically argued against the two primary intentions behind the question "who gets to speak for God?".

Now (finally!) I'll give some of my own thoughts about the issue...

As I mentioned before, people generally use this question as a way of articulating either a) a leaderless/egalitarian position, or b) overall skepticism about the ability to objectively know what the Bible teaches.

I find both intentions unnecessary, but that doesn't mean I object to the question.

So, in my opinion, who does get to speak for God?

First, we need to remember that each of Christ's followers has the right to read and the empowerment to understand Scripture. The Holy Spirit resident within us makes clear things that the "natural man" cannot grasp. This is one of the truths the Reformers fought so hard for, and we should not readily abandon it. I will never advocate a position that only allows a certain select few to speak for God, whether pastor, teacher, elder or otherwise.

But we can't take that position too far. We must also acknowledge that some people have ability to handle Scripture beyond our own, through training, practice, wisdom, experience, etc... For example, odds are good that a pastor of 25 years will have some significant skill in interpreting Scripture - skill to a degree unlikely to be found in a new Christian. But that same pastor of 25 years has no monopoly on truth! He will have just as many biases and preconceived notions as the rest of us. We need each other - all our voices - to help keep one another honest, to gently expose our biases, to gain a deeper sense of perspective.

Those in the life of the local church accustomed to speaking for God (read: pastors, preachers, elders, SS teachers, etc...) need to carefully avoid giving the impression that they have exclusive right to full knowledge. We must be willing to admit just how humble our level of understanding really is. When necessary, we must be willing to agree to disagree.

But yet we cannot escape the genuine authority structures that the Bible lays out for us. Elders have a God-given responsibility to guard the flock against wolves. And trust me, there are plenty of wolves out there - cults, 'isms, heresies, and downright demonic schemes. Elders - especially those that are paid to serve full-time - likely have much more time than others to read and research, to ponder and work through the issues facing us today. In short, they very often have insight and wisdom that we cannot ignore. So, for example, if you want to bring so-and-so's book into your Sunday School class but the elders consider it unwise ... listen to them! Ultimately you retain the right to leave that local assembly - it's the best way people can help keep elders and churches from straying. But so long as you're under the authority of a local church, give serious consideration to the wisdom of its leaders.

Moreover, we are all part of a body - one organism. Therefore it is simply unacceptable to ignore the wise counsel of others, believing that we all "speak for God". It is unhealthy to think of "me" all the time, instead of "us". There's a time and place for "me", but the normal model should be "us".

Take the "worship wars" of the recent past. How much of this would have been avoided by people remembering that the church does not revolve around their personal preferences, but instead heeding the wisdom of the elders and the principles of "us" (not "me")?

I guess more than anything what I'm really calling for is humility.

Elders, teachers, preachers and pastors that humbly recognize their own limitations; that humbly recognize the skills and abilities of others around them; that humbly speak for God as they serve the church.

Congregants that humbly recognize the authority structures within the life of the church; that humbly desire to understand the Word; that humbly speak for God as they collectively do the work of ministry.

Hatushili

Read More......

Who gets to speak for God? (part 2 of 3)

[In case you missed part one, you can read it here.]

Last time, we looked at those that use the question "Who gets to speak for God?" as a way to support egalitarianism, or even so-called "leaderless" models of church.

Today we look at other primary way people use this great question...

There are plenty of well-meaning folk out there that use this question as a way of supporting their belief that so much of what we call Biblical interpretation is subjective. They've grown weary of the somewhat silly notion that (for example) Greek and Hebrew language skill can resolve all the difficulties of the Bible! [Believe it or not, I was once in that camp ... 15 semesters of ancient languages later I know better!] They tire of people that think they've got it all figured out. You know the type - no room for mystery, no room for disagreement.

So the question ("who gets to speak for God?") gets raised as a way of reminding everyone that no one has a direct line from the mouth of God, as it were. We're all - like it or not - subject to a certain amount of subjectivity when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

There are those that believe almost everything about the Bible is subjective, but I'm not really addressing those folks in this post. In my experience, they tend not to ask the question we're discussing. Nor do they use the question to prop up their claims. They tend to be much more direct and pointed about their issues...

But for those that genuinely wrestle with the many (seemingly) contradictory or at least "difficult" passages of Scripture, asking this question is a good way of levelling the playing field.

There are two appropriate responses to this situation, in my opinion:

1) We must acknowledge the fundamental truth of what they're saying. There is a fair bit of subjectivity in the human interpretation of Scripture. You don't have to like that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. That doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't study God's Word and seek to come to an understanding of if. What it means is that we must carefully guard against coming to quick or easy conclusions, and we must certainly make every effort to genuinely consider the opinions and interpretations of other Christ-followers when they disagree with ours.

Here's a good way to start. Try to eliminate the only-slightly subtle "I'm right and you're not" language from your vocabulary. For example, avoid phrases like:

Anyone who takes the Bible seriously will agree with me.

That's a pretty liberal interpretation.

Sorry, I just don't buy that interpretation.

In others words, when the debate is in-house let's keep it civil and humble.

2) When appropriate, we need to try to help these people understand Biblical hermeneutics. Know going in that there are different hermeneutical paradigms that people use, and some of them you're just going to have to agree to disagree with. But in my experience, once people see that you hold your interpretations humbly but you hold them for well-considered reasons they are much more likely to feel a peace about the whole process of Biblical interpretation. We can't give the impression that people just make this stuff up! Because that's exactly how it looks to many...

If we believe that God wants us to know His Word, we must believe that He's given guidelines for how to do so. Helping people understand this principle therefore comes with the added bonus of helping them understand the very nature of God better.

---

So, if you're asking "Who gets to speak for God?" because you're frustrated with the know-it-all attitude of too many Christians and what to encourage them toward humility, I'm with you!

But if you're asking the question out of your own doubts and fears, let me help you.

Hatushili

Read More......

Who gets to speak for God? (part 1 of 3)

There is a great question you hear often in emerging circles: Who gets to speak for God? It's a good question, but it's more complicated than it might seem on the surface. I want to go through the two primary ways people use that question - what exactly do they mean, and what point are they trying to make?

Then I'd like to argue for a position somewhere in between the standard emerging mantra (if there truly is such a thing as a "standard" anything in emerging) and the traditional Protestant position. This will be a three-part series, then. So let's begin...

[Before we dive into this, let me just note that I don't pretend to know how everyone uses this question, nor even most. What follows is my general impression of the ways this question is bandied about in emerging circles. I consider myself fairly well-read on the subject, but by no means an expert.]

First, it's important to note that there are two ways people use this great question - who gets to speak for God? In this post we'll examine one:

The Egalitarian/Leaderless position: There are plenty of emerging (and otherwise) folk out there that seem to use this question to argue for either a generally egalitarian position or perhaps even a truly leaderless model. The argument goes something like this: since we're a "kingdom of priests", no one person has the right to speak for God exclusively on any given issue; therefore, we'll not have either a) traditional leadership roles, or b) traditional teaching/preaching formats.

Solomon's Porch is a good example of this. Doug Pagitt (a name you should definitely know in emerging circles) is the pastor there. This is what their website has to say about their "leadership co-op". Notice in particular that the only thing even bordering on a Biblical notion of qualified leadership is (perhaps) in the phrase "Demonstrate leadership consistent with the Biblical and Historical church example". This is a conscious effort on their part to do away with the notion of exclusively male, exclusively elder-based leadership. I'll not insult Doug and make the "he doesn't take the Bible seriously charge" that so many others have levelled at him. But clearly I understand things a little differently than he!

Doug's concept of preaching also falls into this category. He calls traditional preaching "speeching" and is not very fond of it. Instead, he argues for what amounts to an open mic night, guided loosely by the pastor. Again, "who gets to speak for God"? At Solomon's Porch, virtually anyone. What if a bona fide heretic takes the floor? What about a cultist? What about a grossly immature Christian? What about someone with absolutely no understanding of Biblical interpretation?

The answer? Remember - we're a kingdom of priests and therefore all get to speak for God.

The tough part about arguing against this approach is that it is right on some level. We are a holy priesthood - so says 1 Peter 2:5.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that egalitarianism is the more Biblical position, nor does it mean that monologue (traditional preaching) is less desirable than an open mic. The fundamental problem with this version of the "who gets to speak for God" question is that it neglects the many, many passages of Scripture that deal directly with leadership, teaching, preaching, etc... The Bible is very plain that certain people are set apart as leaders of the church. The Bible calls these people elders and lists very specific requirements that they must meet, and lists a number of the responsibilities of elders to the local church, and lists many of the responsibilities of the local church to the elders. We're not working with a lack of data here, folks!

If elders have a responsibility to keep the heretical "wolves" out of the assembly (and they do), how can you justify risking heresy in the name of egalitarianism? How can you brush off this terrible responsibility with a "who gets to speak for God"?

If elders are required to be capable teachers (and they are) and those especially gifted and able at teaching are to be commended (and they are), then how can we justify the "open mic" theory of preaching with a "who gets to speak for God"?

If elders are given a specific list of (probably minimal) requirements (and they are), how can we justify not including these in the discussion of "who gets to speak for God"?

There's something fundamentally American about the basic notion of egalitarianism, isn't there? We are, after all, rugged Individualists. We blaze our own trails, right? We have our rights, after all! As I've argued before, this kind of thinking has little place in the community of Christ's followers.

Having said all that, I'm not arguing for a position that only elders have the right to ever communicate, teach, preach, lead, etc. I'll get to my position after the next post...

Also, please understand that I'm merely using Solomon's Porch as one example. I don't know what goes on in their assembly nearly well enough to say that all of the above is true of them. This isn't about Pagitt; it's about a particular interpretation of "who gets to speak for God".

If you're asking that question in an effort to by-pass or ignore the God-given responsibilities of elders, you're on the wrong track.

Hatushili

PS: Just for JB...

Read More......

Senior Saints and Postmodernity

I've spent a fair bit of time wondering out loud how cultural postmodernity might affect Christian ministry. We've together spent many posts and comment sessions debating the merits of many different thoughts. But they've virtually always been related to adult ministry generally, and mostly to young adult ministry in particular.

But what about, say, ministry to children? Or ministry to "Senior Saints"? Does postmodernity have any tools to offer us in these endeavors?

As you might have guessed, I think they do. In this post, I'll wrestle with the implications for Seniors ministry. Later on I'll tackle children. [Wait, that sentence doesn't quite sound right, does it?!]...


One of the biggest upsides to postmodenity is its inherent (and fierce) desire for community. Whereas most churches in the Modern era really had/have to work hard to foster a sense of genuine community (at least larger churches; smaller churches had/have a built-in help - their size!), churches that embrace cultural postmodernity more or less insist on community. The individual is as de-emphasized as s/he can be in American culture, and the group (the church) is lifted up. So what has this to do with ministry to seniors?

For whatever reason, most seniors share this desire for community, but primarily in the context of their blood family. If we can convey the concept that Christian community can be even more meaningful than blood relationships, I believe we'll find seniors more engaged and more encouraged by the ministry of the local church. But how to do this?

Most postmodern younger adults really want to spend time in multi-generational contexts. We don't want to only or primarily be around those exactly like us. Nor do we really want to even be categorized by our age. This lends itself naturally to mentoring relationships within the local church. Those with a more postmodern bent will need little persuasion to spend time around those with more/different life experiences than themselves. Thus, a practical path to the hypothetical community I mentioned above.

Local churches should be actively seeking and promoting ways to encourage such relationships to grow. They can't be forced, though - remember, one of the key concepts in cultural postmodernity is that relationships develop organically and community be authentic. So how do we do this?

I think the local church should officially conduct a funeral service for the concept of strict age-step Sunday School classes and/or small groups. Nothing discourages the kind of organic community I'm talking about more than forcing people to be isolated with only people in the same age group. Once one reaches a certain age, don't the substantive differences between ages largely disappear? Surely there are major pathmarkers on the journey of adulthood (marriage, children, empty-nest, retirement, etc...), but shouldn't these different experiences be shared with others? Can't we learn more together than we can apart?

For me personally, one of the greatest ministries I have been involved with in the last ten years was an adult elective Sunday School class that was intentionally multi-generational. We had members from 20-something to 80-something! It was really a wonderful mini-community within the context of the larger local church. I miss it, frankly.

Here's another thought: I've long maintained that one of the primary ways a pastor conducts the business of ministry is by trying to place people in contexts where they are most likely to feel and follow the Spirit's leading. Surely multi-generational classes/small groups is a way to do this. But there are others. How many churches actually have some kind of strategy for encouraging mentoring? I don't think this is something you can necessarily have a program for, but there are things a church can do to encourage the process.

For example, as simple as it sounds, why not spend some time preaching about mentoring? The Bible is full of examples of younger men learning at the feet of older. Samuel and Eli come to mind. Show that it's important to your local church by using time in the pulpit to encourage it.

Or how about a pastor/elder specifically seeking out some of the older and wiser people in the assembly and regularly discussing the mentoring concept with them. Then set in place "social" events that might put the right people in the right place...

I could go on, but you get the point. We can leverage cultural postmodernity within the life of the local church to better minister to seniors, as well as to be better ministered to by by them.

Read More......

Finding balance in an off-kilter world

As I've been working through the process of sending resumes to churches, reading online search ads, reading church websites (I'm sure it's more than 100 by now), etc... I've spent a lot of time thinking (and praying, but not enough) about the situation that many of these churches find themselves in...

In a word: unbalance. They've lived without a pastor for months, sometimes years. They were accustomed to having a leader of leaders, but then suddenly (and for varied reasons) they don't. They do fine for a while, especially those that had a good system of leadership training in place. But like it or not, they're rather off-kilter.

It's like waking up one morning with a stiffness in your neck that only allows you to function if you tip your head ever so slightly to the right. At first you rejoice that you've discovered a way of coping with this situation. And as the day goes on, you almost forget that your head is slightly tilted. When you reach the end of the day, you reflect back upon it and fall asleep hoping your neck will be better in the morning.

But if your in the situation of most churches seeking a pastor, your neck is no better in the morning. Hopefully it's no worse either, but it's definitely no better. And so you move through the days and weeks and months in this slightly not-normal position. You get used to it. But then it simply gets wearisome and you begin to long for the day you can keep your head straight up and down.

I've been a part of churches that went through the search for a pastor. I've had good friends and family who've gone through the same. Truth be known, most of us likely have some association with this condition. It's tolerable, but no fun. So how do you get through it?

Faith and patience.


Now I'm looking at the situation from the other side, but I'm beginning to feel the same way - slightly off-kilter. I'm doing fine; I enjoy the research time I have these days, I'm still getting used to not being a seminary student anymore, I love reading through the websites of all these searching churches. But for all my "fine", my head is still tipped ever so slightly off-kilter. Each of us was made to serve Him, and each in varied ways. I was made to serve Him as a pastor, but yet I find myself without a church. It's tolerable, but not fun. So who do I get through it?

Faith and patience.


LORD, I pray you might quickly bring my path together with the church family out there that you have ordained. But in the meantime, give us all faith and patience.

Hatushili

Read More......

Emerging Seekers?

A common question (for me) came up again the other day, so I thought I might ponder a bit on this post.

Aren't Seeker and Emerging like and oil and water?

Yes. And no. Sort of.

Let's think this through...

The most recent version of this question came as my wife was scouring "pastor wanted" ads over at Church Staffing. She found a self-described Purpose Driven/Seeker church looking to hire someone to pursue their vision of having an Emerging ministry.

Most probably the folks that wrote this ad fall into one of a few possible categories:

A. They don't really know what Emerging means. There's a large category of people out there that seem to think "Emerging" is a new style of worship, or perhaps a new method of organizing church services. They fail to grasp the basic message inherent in the term Emerging - we need to come out of and away from the past, not just tweak it. To many, an "Emerging" or (what's often erroneously considered a synonym) "postmodern" ministry just means lighting a few candles and turning the lights down. That's just simply not going to work, folks.

B. They want to start an Emerging congregation to serve as a hold-over until these congregants "mature" into the "normal" church service. This, as best I understand it, is what happened to Axis at Willow Creek. Click on the Willow Creek link and scroll through their Ministry Quick-Link and this is what you'll see:




In other words, they fully expect that the only people interested in postmodern culture and/or emerging church concepts will be "20-somethings" - a kind of "big kid" youth group. Once you "grow up", as it were, then you'll be a part of "adult" church, I suppose.

Now mind you, I'm not trying to take cheap shots at Willow Creek. They do a great many things very well. Emerging just isn't one of them. Churches that want to start an "emerging ministry" are missing the point, too. In fact, it could safely be said that option B is just a variant of option A!

But I don't want to give the impression that I think Seeker can have nothing to do with Emerging. That would put me in the currently standard mode of "whining Emergent dude" - I don't want that!

I think the two models can co-exist, but not in the same facility and not under an pretense that one is better than the other. The two models are different; one is not inherently better than the other. One happens to be very good at reaching Boomers, the other at reaching the rest of us. But I think they could work hand-in-hand under the right conditions. More on what those conditions might look like later ...

So for now, when I see ads looking to hire a guy to start an "emerging ministry" I'll continue to do as I have: check out their website, read around a bit and verify my suspicions - they know not what they seek.

Hatushili

Read More......

Wanted: God's Clear Direction

As most of you know by now, I've officially graduated! This means, of course, that I'm actively pursuing vocational ministry opportunities. I'm considering a number of different pastoral options - Senior pastor of a more rural/suburban congregation, specialized Family Pastor or Small Group pastor, or the traditional (general purpose) Assistant pastor.

I've sent my resume out to various churches seeking these various positions. I'm not sure yet which specific type of ministry the LORD's calling me too.

To that end, I'd appreciate your prayers: for wisdom, for guidance, for clarity - and mostly for His glory throughout this process.

And if you happen to know of a church looking for a pastor, feel free to direct them to me or me to them.

Thanks,
Nathan

Read More......

Where's the balance?

I've been chewing on an interesting dilemma lately. In seminary circles, one of the great challenges of the day is to persuade local churches to adopt a missional stance toward ministry. For many churches, this is very hard. It's simply so different from what people are comfortable with... I don't like that word much, you know...

Comfortable. It just rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it? When Traditional model churches get comfortable, they also become (largely) immovable.

And then they die.

So, as you can imagine, changing this paradigm of thinking is considered a top priority for many of today's seminary grads (and many current pastors, too). But there's another dynamic in play in this discussion.

One of the most serious criticisms of the emerging church movement (I know, it's not really a 'movement', but the label works right now)... What was I saying? Oh yes. One of the most serious criticisms of the EC movement is that they are often so very light on doctrine. Some are worse - they are bordering on heretical when it comes to doctrine. But does this need to be the case?

Mark Driscoll would emphatically say, 'No!'. So would others, and I agree. But mere agreement isn't getting me anywhere in my thinking. I need to think this through. What might such a balanced ministry look like? Is it really possible?

My mind wanders back to the late 1980s. At that time, I was involved in an IFCA church that was not nearly as legalistic as many I've stumbled across. But nevertheless, it was an IFCA church. Traditional model. Hymn books and an organ. Ties and dresses. I often found myself wondering (sometimes out loud, but that's another story!) why churches with strong and solid doctrinal positions (such as the IFCA church I attended) couldn't also have more emotionally meaningful corporate worship. Not that there's anything wrong with hymns - please don't think that's what I'm saying. It's just that when churches refuse to sing anything but hymns it often leads to a cold ritualism for most participants - a rut, if you will.

Anyway ... back to the topic. I wondered why it seemed that the churches with the most vibrant corporate worship were the weakest on doctrine, while the churches strongest on doctrine were weakest on corporate worship. At the time, I was told that seeking "emotionalism" (which, as it turns out, was code for 'a meaningful experience of worship') was unwise and spiritually dangerous. We didn't want to be labelled as charis-maniacs, you know!

How sad. It's the same reason I don't think anyone in the IFCA ever preached a message on the Holy Spirit during the entire 1980s... but again, I digress.

In that context, it was with great joy that I discovered (in the 1990s) churches that actually had both: great corporate worship and sound doctrine. [Note: I understand that "sound doctrine" is a subjective category, and I do not take it to mean "doctrine that matches mine". To take this further would take me even further afield... Like that ever happens!]

So I began to study this phenomenon - how did these churches come to have both? What I found was that the problem all along had been almost strictly an issue of making one's personal preference a dogmatic issue. I hesitate to say these words, to be honest. But I genuinely think that the cold hard truth is this: churches that refused to sing anything but "the great hymns of the faith" were basically saying...

If you don't agree with my personal taste in music, you're not truly spiritual.

Do you hear the ridiculousness of that statement? The sad part is that this thinking became so common and so ingrained that there are still people today that seriously believe only hymns glorify God. I feel myself venturing off topic again...

Focus, grasshopper. Focus.

OK. So in this context, I've been thinking through the current version of the same paradigm. Churches today find themselves (often) choosing to be either missional or sound and solid in doctrine. But both are important things to be. The simpleton within me says "just do both". Could it really be that simple?

In this juxtaposition, the 1980s worship music has to correspond to the 2000s missional thinking; the 1980s doctrine to the 2000s doctrine. So what was the hang-up in the 1980s? Personal preference for musical style. If the analogy holds, the problem today, then, would be ...

Personal preference for traditional (read: 1950s) ministry models.

778 words into this post and I'm no closer to anything truly helpful.

This gets me nowhere in the situation I described to start this post. The EC movement has a good grasp on missional thinking; what they often lack is sound doctrine. So really, the key to making this juxtaposition valuable has to be the churches in the 1980s that had vibrant corporate worship but poor doctrine. What of them? Did they get things worked out in the 1990s?

Here's where I get depressed. No; they didn't. And they haven't. These churches still have vibrant corporate worship but shaky (at best) doctrine. Too many of them fell victim to Prosperity Gospel. Too many were won over by Word of Faith teaching.

But there's hope. I have to believe that traditional model churches with sound doctrine can become missional. I've seen it happen. I have friends who can give first-hand accounts.

And I have to believe that missional model churches can find sound doctrine. But that's all it is for me right now, one of those "I choose to believe it" things. A leap of faith, if you will.

But what if I'm wrong?

Hatushili

Read More......

Men on the Edge

I had the same conversation with both a fellow seminary student and the Dean of the seminary today. The subject was one very near and dear to my heart, because it specifically involves people like me.

By now you are perhaps wondering what quirky attribute I'm talking about...

No - not an attribute; a position in history. At the risk of sounding grandiose, I am increasingly convinced that God has specifically raised up a generation of pastors and leaders who have one foot in modernity and the other in postmodernity. I find myself one of those people.

Truth be told, I'm more postmodern than modern. But I was churched in a modern environment, and most of my education has been decidedly modern as well. Yet I can't escape the fact that the gears in my head turn in ways different than modernity. This is not the place to discuss exactly what that means, but I just wanted to give a bit of context to what I'm about to say.

Those in the world of emerging church, postmodernity, Brian McLaren, etc... sometimes act as if modernity is the root of all evil. They often give one the impression that we need a revolution in the way we do church. I agree - sort of.

Those in the world of traditional church, modernity, John McArthur, etc... sometimes act as if postmodernity is the root of all evil. They often give on the impression that we need to suppress this attack against the way we do church. I agree - sort of.

Both camps make some valid points. [Incidentally, if you have no idea what I'm talking about at this point, this post isn't really a good place to start chewing on the subject.] More to the point of this post, both camps will continue to exist for some time yet. While I do think that postmodernity will be the vast majority in the next few generations (and for many generations to come after that), the fact remains that for right now both groups of people exist simultaneously.

Think of the situation as cross-cultural, if that helps. Moderns and postmoderns share much in common here in America, but there are serious differences in very important areas of thought. So - just like a missionary overseas has to learn another culture as well as his own - what we need is people versed in both cultures that can shepherd God's people in this time in between - in between the time now and the time postmodernity will be the norm.

I know of such men. I share classrooms and lecture halls with some of them. I am one of them.

In His infinite wisdom, God has created people like me: steeped in modernity, yet wired for postmodernity. Don't get me wrong - I'm not claiming any sort of special status for myself. I'm not saying I'm better than anybody else. I just find it too coincidental to be coincidental that God has made people like me and then gifted and called them to vocational ministry.

I've got lots of thoughts on how this cross-cultural modern/postmodern ministry can actually take place, but those are thoughts for another day. Right now I just wanted to expose you guys to the concept:

Maybe God has placed specific men in this time and place to shepherd both His modern and His postmodern children as one loving flock.

Maybe those that insist on a revolutionary break are wrong-headed. Maybe those that see the inevitable tidal wave of postmodernity as a fundamental threat to Christianity are wrong-headed. Maybe there is a sense in which we can get along. Not with the ministry models we've gotten used to, I think. But maybe, just maybe it's possible.

Hatushili

Read More......

My Big Announcement

As promised, I've got a fairly major announcement to make. But first, some context...

Good News Baptist Church (GNBC) is the assembly my family has called 'home' for the last eight years. It is what I have called a Tradition model church, and one that we've really enjoyed over the years. I haven't always personally agreed with everything that's gone on there, but who's ever agreed with everything their church family did?

As you know if you've read much of my blog, I'm not quite a Traditional model kind of guy. I'm not saying the Traditional model is bad; just that it doesn't normally fit the way I personally think ministry and church should be done.

If all this is true, then the obvious question you're likely asking is, 'Why have you attended such a church for eight years?'. There are lots of answers; let me give you a few of the biggest:

My Sunday School class. I love my Sunday School class members. I love the dynamic of the class. I love the attitude they have toward one another and toward God's Word. I love the fact that they actually listen to me!

My children. They love the AWANA ministry. They love many of the people there. Noah, my oldest, is his Sunday School teacher's (Rich Baughman) biggest fan. Rebekah, my eight year old, loves her Sparks leader (Judy Hephner). All of my children adore the Pastor.

The LORD's leading. I've long maintained that a person ought to attend the church that the LORD leads them to, and that they ought not leave that church unless the LORD specifically leads them away. It's a conviction - I can't really prove it from Scripture. But it's a personal conviction I've held for many, many years.

There are lots of additional reasons. Lots of them. But ... as you've likely guessed by now ...

... we've officially left this church.

Why? As I prepare for full-time vocational ministry myself, it's important to me to return to my roots, as it were. I need to involve myself in the ministry of a local church that more precisely fits my personal vision for how church should be done. That does not mean that I think GNBC is bad or wrong. It's just different.

I feel led by God Almighty in this direction. I had not felt this leading before, despite my differences of opinion. The LORD had things for me to learn there, and I suppose I've learned them (since He's leading me away now).

It's been a difficult and sad decision, to be honest. But at the same time it's been exciting to see God work and move in this (and so many other) way lately.

That's about all I want to say on the subject, at least for now. If you want to comment, feel free. But if you want to know more information, you'll have to email or call me personally. I welcome your continued prayers for my family as we seek His leading for the present, as well as His direction into vocational ministry.

Hatushili

Read More......