6 Comment(s)

1. Brian,
   You made some good points here in this post. Remember my
   quote you started with was
   
   a response to your quoting Andrew Jones on the subject. In that context, and
   from what I read of “most” emergents, the removal of authority and equivocating
   on it between the contexts of “service” and “leadership” is
   common. My point here is to make sure my quote was taken in the context I wrote
   it in.
   To say that “pastors should be equal to laity,” in
   the context of service, is accurate. To say that “pastors
   should be equal to laity” in church leadership is inaccurate.
   My point in your earlier post was to say that emergents often talk about this
   concept of pastoral equality with laity in the context of service,
   when they really mean it also to be desired in the leadership. Yes, even many of
   them, although they may not say it, desire for there to be no leadership or
   authority in the church, regardless of what the Bible says on the subject. My
   point, is that this anarchy approach to Christianity is unbiblical and should be
   avoided.
   As far as your “many?” questions, I am not going to broad
   brush all emergents with the same brush. I have said many times
   that I think that much of the desires of some emergents are admirable, but also
   much of it is misguided in rebellion to “dictatorship Christianity,” which is
   equally unbiblical. I’ll leave the accusation of “all/many/some” to others, but
   my experience is that a lot of emergent “conversations” have fallen into this
   trap. The new generation consists of young people who have grown up in churches
   which were not models of Biblical leadership, and were
   dictator in nature. However, in recognizing that dictatorship in church is not
   Biblical, it is also not Biblical to throw out all leadership, as
   doing so is equally unbiblical.
   The New Testament has much to say about the qualifications
   of church leaders. A study in church polity would probably be very beneficial,
   which is why I sent you the link in another blog to a site where they describe
   how to do it right (http://www.9marks.com).
   I believe if the younger generation had grown up in churches where of true
   Biblical polity and leadership had been exampled, we wouldn’t have the emergent
   rebellion desiring to restructure all church authority and liturgy.
   In your Biblical quotes and references, I notice that it
   appears that you seem to be confusing the concepts of church service
   with Christian gatherings. Just because you can rattle off texts
   that show that Christians “met in homes,” doesn’t also indicate that they
   didn’t meet in church services too. The two things aren’t mutually
   exclusive. A Biblical church can still meet in church and
   have church, where the church operates as the New Testament defines it
   should, and, while also meeting in the homes
   of members for the purposes of fellowship and other things the Scriptures
   also define.
   Trying to say they had church in the homes as
   opposed to in church, is imposing something on the texts that isn’t
   there. My point is that there is nothing wrong with churches or parts of
   churches meeting in homes. In fact, healthy churches probably do this often. But
   doing so, doesn’t mean they do that instead of meeting in the
   church building, and it certainly doesn’t mean that Biblical authority and
   leadership should be canned. It is on that point where the emergents stray.  You
   want to meet in homes? Knock yourself out. That is great. But don’t say that
   churches that also meet in buildings at certain times for teaching
   and preaching and breaking bread are doing something wrong. Also, if a church
   leadership must utilize Matthew 18 and 1 Cor 5 as legitimate church discipline,
   that isn’t wrong either….if Biblically done.
   I think the point that is often missed when so much
   “conversation” is made on where the meetings take place (buildings
   or homes), and how the meetings take place (liturgy or
   contemporary), that the who is meeting is completely left out of
   the discussion.
   You quoted Acts 2:45-47 which says, “Every day they
   continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes
   and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising
   God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number
   daily those who were being saved.” Emergents
   like to quote verses like these and others in Acts 2, and emphasize the
   where they met. I think the more important emphasis is on the fact that
   “the Lord added to their number daily those who were
   being saved.”
   Emergents also often go back a few verses and quote verses
   42-45 as an example of a “legit” church: “They devoted themselves to the
   apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to
   prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders
   and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the
   believers were together and had everything in common.
   Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need,”
   and I agree with them on this. However, they rarely will put these verses in the
   proper context of why this was happening. They could get the
   why of this, and therefore discover the who, by only
   looking a few verses higher where Peter told them that they were a wicked people
   because they put Jesus to death (v23), gave them the gospel of Christ
   resurrected, and told them point blank:
   “"Therefore …… be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom
   you crucified, both Lord and Christ." When the people heard this,
   they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers,
   what shall we do?" Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized,
   every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your
   sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
   The promise is for you and your children and for all who
   are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." With many other words
   he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save
   yourselves from this corrupt generation."
   Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand
   were added to their number that day.”
   (Acts
   2:36-40)
   That is the message that the emergent folks forget to give. They want to
   focus on where the church should meet and what the should
   be doing (which are good things to discuss), but they rarely want to discuss
   who should be there, and how and what message
   gets someone from being outside the church to inside the church. And most
   importantly, they seem to forget:

   ·        
   Who is doing the converting: (“the Lord
   added to their number daily those who were being saved”-
   v47), and

   ·        
   What message causes this (“Those who accepted
   his message” v40)….what message? “Repent!”….  “With many other
   words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this
   corrupt generation." v38-40.
   That message is not what you hear in the emergent
   “conversations.” If one doesn’t understand why and who
   is meeting, then the where and how you meet is
   irrelevant. I fear that it isn’t just the leadership and authority that the
   emergents reject, but also, anyone who is willing to tell them that
   repentance is required for entrance into the kingdom.
   You can meet in all the right places and do all
   the right things, and still die and go to hell because you rejected Him who paid
   the price for your sin. You can’t repent of sin, if you are never
   told what sin is, and that sin is a problem for God. God is angry at sin (Psalm
   7:11-13), and will judge sin (Psalm
   9:7-8;
   
   Rom2:4-9),but many emergents don’t know that, because “the message” they
   hear is only how much God accepts you and loves you as you are. That isn’t true.
   God hates sinners “as they are,” (Psalm
   11:5) and He became flesh and died so they wouldn’t have to. That is
   how much God loves you, and if that message isn’t preached, it can’t be
   accepted, and if it isn’t accepted, God’s love doesn’t apply…because the cross
   IS God’s love:
   God demonstrates his own love
   for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)

   Tony Rose | Jan 26, 2006 | Reply

2. Thanks for the comment. You make some very good points. A couple of thoughts:

   1) You’re absolutely right about the importance of focusing on repentance, brokenness, confession, forgiveness, restoration, etc. more than the methodology or ecclesiology or style or anything else (though all those other things are necessary, they only have real substance within the context of confession, repentance, and life in Christ). It’s why I’ve said before I identify more with the term missional than emergent, and why many in the conversation are moving away from the term emergent - because it’s often been co-opted to primarily mean coffee and candles.

   2) You seem to present the church meeting in homes as secondary in importance to meeting in church buildings (”A Biblical church can still meet in church and have church, where the church operates as the New Testament defines it should, and, while also meeting in the homes of members for the purposes of fellowship and other things the Scriptures also define”). Can you point me to where the New Testament defines the church should meet in dedicated buildings? Moreso, what scriptural evidence is there of any city or region in the New Testament that contained dozens or hundreds of autonomous churches (Alamance County has roughly 400 of them), each with its own dedicated building and paid staff?

   brian | Jan 26, 2006 | Reply

3. Thanks Brian. Sorry for the cryptic post, but your new blog
   site doesn’t handle my tags quite as nicely as the old one, and I miss the
   “preview” button which prevented me from doing that before. I’ll try to do
   better.
    
   I read your post before on the “missional” vs. “emergent”
   and it was somewhat encouraging to see you say some of those things.
    
   I didn’t intend to “present the church meeting in homes
   as secondary in importance to meeting in church buildings” as you have
   indicated that it came across to you. In fact, the opposite was my point, in
   that where “the church” meets is of secondary importance
   altogether compared to why the church meets, and who
   the church is.
    
   You are right that the NT doesn’t tell us where
   we have to meet, and when it describes where early Christians met,
   it isn’t doctrine to tell us that we have to do it the same way. My point is
   that emergents often place their emphasis on where to meet, and to serve coffee,
   and to sit on couches, etc. etc. and it is all unnecessary nonsense in so far as
   Christianity is concerned. It isn’t that those things are wrong, but it also
   isn’t wrong to meet in churches either.
    
   There are traditions that exist that are ok to follow.
   There are traditions that exist that are ok to change. The point is, they are
   traditions and not doctrines, and people who are getting worked up
   over the traditions they don’t like as being wrong, are placing
   the emphasis in the wrong place altogether. If granny wants to go to a
   high-liturgical church and praise God with hymns and organs, while sitting on a
   pew, then praise God! If her grandson wants to go somewhere and listen to
   contemporary music and drink coffee and sit on a couch, then praise God. The
   issue is not if those things are right or wrong. In both instances, the
   issue is, what is the message they are hearing? I believe I can
   make a pretty good case that much of “emergent” is so busy talking about
   those things that are irrelevant, that they don’t ever get around to
   discussing that which is important. And when and if they do, they don’t have a
   qualified teacher; because they have rejected him in the process of rejecting
   the traditions they equate his authority to.
    
   So I don’t place any primary or secondary emphasis on
   where a church meets or how they worship. Only that
   they “worship the true God in Spirit and Truth.” Ultimately the goal for
   the gathering of the saints is for the edification of the saints, which
   hopefully turns into, going into all the world, making disciples (by preaching
   the right message), and baptizing them (for the right reasons).
    
   However, with all that said, I must conclude by saying that
   if the purpose of having church in homes rather than
   in church buildings is to exclude a qualified
   teaching pastor, because his authority is being rejected, then that is wrong.
   What typically takes place in homes is fellowship (which is a good
   thing), not good qualified teaching. If the place where the sound word is being
   taught is at the church building, then the flock should go to where the shepherd
   is teaching. That doesn’t mean they can’t still meet in homes and fellowship, or
   even teach there. The opposite is true as well. If the good and proper teaching
   is going on in the homes, then that is fine and Christians should be there too.
   My point is that if the flock is going to the home to avoid the
   shepherd’s teaching because they want to sit around in their communal ignorance
   and discuss “what it means to me” rather than learning “what it
   means,” then that is rebellion and should be confessed as sin. My
   observation is that much of what is “emergent” is in fact doing this, and it
   should be exposed and avoided. If on the other hand, Christians want to meet in
   the coffee shop, or in homes, or in the cow fields like John Wesley did, and
   when they are there (wherever there is) they preach, teach,
   fellowship, pray, break bread, etc. then Praise God! If they are going outside
   of the church to avoid leadership, authority, and shepherding, they should be
   admonished and corrected. The issue isn’t where its going on, it
   is what is going on!

   Tony Rose | Jan 27, 2006 | Reply

4. Yep, there are all sorts of wrong reasons to do things (wrong reasons to leave a church, wrong reasons to stay at a church, wrong reasons to primarily meet in homes, etc.).

   I think one reason the emerging church movement is sometimes misunderstood is that people (all people - me, you, the media, emergent-bashers, emergent-fans, etc.) tend to compare two things by focusing on their differences. So we subtly look at the emerging church and the traditional evangelical church and sometimes quickly gloss over everything they have in common and instead focus all our energies on the issues where they differ.

   One issue where I think many in the emerging conversation have it exactly right is the inadequacy of “preaching the right message”. I think you’ll agree. Too much of evangelicalism is about saying the right things or looking the right way or saying you believe the right things, and then there’s a huge inconsistency between what you say and how you act. The prevalence of that is one of the big reasons why the church has lost so much credibility in our culture. It’s a big part of why the emerging church movement and the house church movement have both gained so much traction lately.

   Can you define what you mean by “qualified
   teaching pastor”? What are the qualifications of a qualified teaching pastor?

   Brian | Jan 27, 2006 | Reply

5. Brian,

   When you say that, “Too much of evangelicalism is about saying the right things or looking the right way or saying you believe the right things, and then there’s a huge inconsistency between what you say and how you act,” you seem to indicate that those who emphasize the importance of “the right message” somehow also teach that the right message is all that is necessary, and that life transformation is not also critically important. This implication is untrue.

   Although the right message is critical, saying that does not imply that being consistent in action is not also critical. Sure there are those who preach the right message and don’t follow through in action. They are hypocrites. The emergents are correct in pointing out that this exists and that it is wrong or inconsistent. They are wrong however, in implying that all those who point to the critical nature of “the right message” are also inconsistent in how they live their lives. Having “the right message” is absolutely critical,” but it is a starting point, not an ending one. If “the right message” doesn’t affect your life and how you live, then the right message hasn’t reached you.

   You say that the prevalence of this inconsistency is one of the big reasons for the emergent church and house church movements. I agree with you on that point. I do think that recognizing this inconsistency has motivated these movements, and their motivation to leave inconsistent churches and go to consistent ones is a good motivation. However, by starting their own movement/churches/conversation/whatever they imply that such legitimate churches with the right message and consistent lives don’t exist. They are wrong in that conclusion. There are many churches today (I admit they are not the majority and you have to do your research to find them) that do preach the right message and also have people who are consistent in their walk. The emergent’s lack of ability to find them does not prove that they don’t exist. If the effort that was spent on the emergent “conversation” were put into finding churches that already preach the right message and have consistent believers, perhaps the hypocritical churches which emergents are rebelling against would slowly be squelched out by genuine and authentic fellowship.

   You asked: ‘Can you define what you mean by “qualified teaching pastor”? What are the qualifications of a qualified teaching pastor?” What I mean, quite simply, is what Scripture means on the subject. Anything other than that is wrong. Scripture is our final authority on everything. I felt like your asking me “what I mean” implies that I would mean something other than what Scripture means. Scripture is clear on the qualifications, and I mean no more or no less.

   I am not going to get into a discussion of specific education, denominational ordinations, or other worldly classified credentials. Nor do I want to get into a discussion of traditional teachings of qualifications. Different traditions and denominational requirement structures exist, but all such structures should exist only in order to make sure those individuals desiring to be teaching elders acquire the necessary Scriptural requirements. Anything that those structures add or remove from what Scripture says is wrong. I am not endorsing or refuting any specific educational program or denominational ordination process. I am only saying that they should be there to equip those who desire to teach and preach to be Scripturally qualified to do so.

   So in not discussing specific educational or ordination requirements, a qualified teaching pastor should be someone who has the ability to exposit Scripture in a way that he can arrive at the true meaning of the text. A good teaching pastor is one who has the attitude of “I don’t have the prerogative of telling you what I think the text says, or what I want the text says…. I only have the right to tell you what the text actually says.” The goal is to arrive at what the original author meant to the original audience. This science of Biblical interpretation does take study. It isn’t easy. One doesn’t have to have a PhD to do it, but one also can’t do it by osmosis either; which is why we are told to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15). So a qualified teaching pastor should be someone who has done this, and who properly understands how to interpret (arrive at the correct meaning of) Scripture. A person who does not understand how to interpret Scripture, who hasn’t studied, and only wants to sit in a circle of other unqualified people to discuss “what does it mean ‘to me,’” is not a qualified teaching person.

   There are ordained pastors who can and do, do this correctly, and who qualify to Scripturally teach. There are ordained pastors who can’t do this and who should not. There are also laity who can and do, do this correctly, and there are laity who can’t and should not. The measuring stick is Scripture, not denominations or educational achievements.

   The emphasis of teaching correct doctrine is amply solidified in Scripture. Those who teach “contrary to sound doctrine” are to be exposed regardless of their worldly educational achievements.

   “You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.” (Titus 2:1)

   “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” (Titus 1:9)

   “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing.” (1 Timothy 6:3-4)

   “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

   “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.” (1 Timothy 1:3-7)

   When the apostle Paul thinks something is important enough to warn the church about for night and day, for three years, to the point of tears, I think the church should listen. His statement to church leaders in Acts 20 is so obviously coming true today by unqualified people teaching incorrectly…

   “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.” (Acts 20: 26-31)

   And in closing, of course, not only is the ability to properly understand and teach the Scriptures, the life of the pastor must also be in accord with the witness of the Scriptures, and all those qualifications should be adhered to as well:

   “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.” (1 Tim 3:2-6)

   Tony Rose | Feb 1, 2006 | Reply

6. Here are a couple of NANC articles that are written to pastors regarding
   their personal study and devotional time. This may give you some good insight on
   how leaders and teacher’s attitudes should be towards what they teach, and also
   how the average Christian should be focusing their personal study. Notice the
   difference in these two articles and your typical "what does it mean to me" type
   of "blind leading the blind" Bible "study." Also notice the authentic and
   genuine application of making it affect your life vs. just going through the
   rote motions (what the emergents claim traditional Christians don’t do).
   
   No Wonder Your "Devotions" Aren’t Working
   
   How to Make Your Bible Study/Devotions Meaningful?

   Tony Rose | Feb 2, 2006 | Reply

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.