Earlier today I found a nice used copy of John Stott's book on preaching, Between Two Worlds (which now, somewhat ironically, sits right beside Martyn Lloyd-Jones', Preaching and Preachers, on the bookshelf). I opened the book at random to page 69, where I found this:

It is difficult to imagine the world in the year A.D. 2000, by which time versatile micro-processors are likely to be as common as simple calculators are today. We should certainly welcome the fact that the silicon chip will transcend human brain-power, as the machine has transcended human muscle-power. Much less welcome will be the probable reduction of human contact as the new electronic network renders personal relationships ever less necessary. In such a dehumanized society the fellowship of the local church will become increasingly important, whose members meet one another, and talk and listen to one another in person rather than on screen. In this human context of mutual love the speaking and hearing of the Word of God is also likely to become more necessary for the preservation of our humanness, not less.

I guess he was off by a few years, as the social networking revolution came along a little later than 2000, but he made a pretty fair assessment back in 1982 when the book was published.

What do you make of his call to the local church in response?

Loading mentions Retweet

On Monday, I walked into the bookstore and my eyes were immediately drawn to a new book on the shelf, Teaching the Faith, Forming the Faithful: A Biblical Vision for Education in the Church, by Gary A. Parrett and S. Steve Kang. I immediately grabbed it, scanned the back cover and the table of contents, and rather impulsively purchased it.

There is a lot to say about educational ministry in the local church. Most important, perhaps, is its declining influence. Quite a lot of churches have done away with extensive educational programs for any number of reasons, and these programs have been replaced by others aimed at things like "spiritual formation." Perhaps it is unconscious, but this fosters a sharp dichotomy between the two when, in fact, they go hand in hand. I do plan on returning to this topic more extensively here in the coming months, because it is one that I am especially passionate about. Also, as I'm considering seeking out a position in which I can be involved in that sort of ministry on a vocational level, I am frequently reflecting on it.

But for now, I just wanted to share this small portion from the first few pages of the book. Parrett and Kang begin their discussion by narrowing in on what they think should be the guiding motif or central part of a church's educational ministry. They use this brief story to illustrate:

Some years back, New Testament scholar Gordon Fee was sitting with other attendees at a workshop about the power of story. The speaker was Eugene Peterson, his faculty colleague. Peterson mentioned an episode in which his four-year-old grandson jumped onto his lap and demanded, "Grandpa, tell me a story, and put me in it." Upon hearing this account, Fee began to weep, overwhelmed by the fact that this is precisely what God has done for all of us. God is unfolding the great Story, and he has invited us to take our places in that story.

This great story into which God has invited us...is the grand drama of redemption and reconciliation. Growing in our understanding of the Story, and of our places in it, is critical for teaching and formation in the Church.

This echoes very closely something I quoted from Robert Webber a few months ago. The point of education in the context of the local church is not simply that members would download the necessary information they need to be saved, or to be able to explain various points of theology, or to answer the arguments of atheists (recall Jamie Smith's discussion on what education is all about). Instead, the goal of the church's education is one of formation, teaching those who belong to the church what it means to inhabit God's story and what it looks like to think and live rooted in that story. God has told us a story, and we are in it.

Loading mentions Retweet

Tonight marks the official start of the Presbyterian Church in America's 37th General Assembly, although some committee work has been going on already. With yesterday's negative ruling on Overtures 5 and 10 to appoint study committees to examine the role of women in the ministry of the church, the internet has been buzzing with all kinds of discussion on the matter. The Twitterverse in particular has come alive with people on both sides of the issues carrying on short discussions on the matter.

One the related issues I've seen discussed is whether a body of male elders is sufficient to address the topic. Some have said that to honestly sit down and deliberate on the matter, women should be present. Others argue that the structure of the PCA as determined in the Book of Church Order does not permit that, and that insofar as the dictates of the BCO are biblical in regards to church government and that the denomination is faithfully enacting the biblical mandates, we should trust that God will bless the discussions and wisdom of the body of elders dealing with the matter at the level of the General Assembly.

Here again, as I am wont to do in the midst of such discussions, I want to find the middle ground between these two positions. There are a few things that need to be taken into consideration here, so let me see if I can flesh this out a bit.

1. As far as the procedure of the General Assembly goes, I side with those who maintain that we should follow the instructions of the BCO. The churches of the denomination have willingly bound themselves to operate according to the document, and should carry out any matter of business according to the rules prescribed. For the present issue, if a church or presbytery feels that there should be a procedural change in how the matter is dealt with, the BCO should not be cast aside because it is seen as an inhibition or obstacle. Instead, the issue of amending the BCO (should it be found to be unbiblical in its current state) must be dealt with first.
2. I fully agree that to have a fruitful discussion on the role of women's ministry in the church, women should be present. However, this discussion does not necessarily need to take place at the level of the General Assembly. In fact, it would probably be most beneficial for a local church to have the discussion with its own members, for in that way all the women of each church can be involved in determining how they can serve Christ's church most effectively. Additionally, to work out these things together as a local body would serve to strengthen the unity and bonds of that church.
3. Although no one has accused anyone directly of doing this, there is an underlying concern in regard to how much authority we give the BCO. While we must certainly respect the governing documents of the denomination, we must nonetheless continue to recognize that they are man-made documents and subject to error (and thus revision). And the PCA has not hesitated to do this, as many amendments have been made to it over the years. My concern here is similar to that of my first point—that we respect the document we have willingly submitted ourselves to by not tossing it aside when it appears to be an obstacle, yet holding in tension our acknowledgement that it is not infallible, and in some cases may not be biblical. It must then always be open to revision, should that be found to be the case.
4. Watching this discussion unfold, it has become apparent that this goes deeper than just the subject of women in ministry. Another topic I've seen emerging is regarding elders and their ability to faithfully deal with this matter. As I mentioned above, some feel that an honest and fruitful discussion of the role of women in ministry can only take place with women present. On the other side are those who assert that when elders are fulfilling their roles in fidelity to the Scriptural mandates for eldership, God will grant them clarity and wisdom to come to biblical conclusions on the matter. Here I find myself in agreement with the latter. But the reply of the former side is worth considering as well—what happens if the elders who are discussing the matter are not elders in a way consistent with the biblical model (on both personal and ecclesiastical levels)? Maybe that is something to chew on.
5. Related to this is the question of how much authority we vest in the eldership of the church. In regard to the last point, there is a limit to how much we can say, and we must concede that oft-quoted dictum that only God truly knows a man's (and a denomination's) heart. With that, we must recognize that God has ordained leadership for His church to which He has given authority to rule the body. While we, as heirs to the Reformed tradition, do not grant our leaders unrestrained authority, we do nonetheless submit ourselves to the authority of the men ordained to lead the church. In the end, there are two extremes we want to avoid: first, the antagonism toward authority that is so characteristic of our culture; and second, allowing the leadership of our churches to rule with unchecked authority. I do believe that when our elders exercise authority within the bounds of legitimacy, we ought to submit to that.

I trust that this is sufficiently unclear and scattered. As with my post yesterday, I'm only attempting to think through some of the issues as they come up. In that regard, I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts you would have on the matter.

Loading mentions Retweet

This post continues a series that will address many of the points on the list compiled by John Muether entitled, "Resisting Modernity: a How-to Guide." You can find the list in full here, and all the posts in this series here.

10. Don't listen to Christian radio, either. It is the new form of itinerant preaching, and thus it erodes our commitment to the ordinances of God.

I have woefully neglected this series in the past month, but am pleased to return to it today. With today's point, I think it might be better to refer to Christian audio as opposed to radio, simply due to the variety of ways we listen to preachers these days (mp3's on our iPods, streaming audio, and so on). At any rate, the problem with Christian audio is largely the same as that of Christian television, that it focuses very directly on a powerful figure and feeds a cult of personality.

One pertinent example comes to mind. John Piper is all over the internet in recordings of various sorts, be it conferences or sermons preached at his church. He has garnered a lot of respect and admiration, and indeed, much of it well-deserved. But here there are a few problems. One, people have become so enamored with his preaching that they begin to feel their own preacher is inadequate. Furthermore, churches without pastors who are searching for one begin to increase their expectations in the hopes that they can secure their own John Piper for their next pastor. As a result, many good and faithful men are left without pastoral positions because they failed to meet the unattainable expectations, and many churches are left without a shepherd. I don't say this to pick on Piper, just to illustrate something that has become a reality in our churches.

Muether's point about eroding our commitment to the ordinances of God the most important thing here. When people become so dependent on a popular preacher, they begin to let go of their dependence on the local church. The local church is where corporate worship happens, where the people of God come together to pray, sing, hear the Word of God, and partake of the sacraments together. Where the elements of worship are participated in and partaken of by the body of believers, that body is fed and nourished by the Spirit of God. However, if we become so fixated on hearing the preaching of some popular preachers we may begin to think that we are fed sufficiently only by hearing a recorded sermon, and subsequently give up meeting together with the people of God. In doing so, we cut ourselves off from our life source and begin to starve ourselves.

There is a flip side to the problem too. Preachers who achieve such repute also find themselves in high demand. Constantly asked to speak at conferences and events, they can be under a great deal of stress. And interestingly, they too will find themselves being pulled away from their local church, and thus face many of the same problems as the people who come to hear them.

Certainly, I want to avoid diminishing the blessing of being able to hear some of today's great preachers through the various mediums of technology. And indeed, we should spend some time listening to some of the things available to us. We just need to be wary that our commitment to hearing them preach does not replace our commitment to the Church and all that goes along with membership and participation in a local church.

Loading mentions Retweet

This post continues a series that will address many of the points on the list compiled by John Muether entitled, "Resisting Modernity: a How-to Guide." You can find the list in full here, and all the posts in this series here.

2. Do not think globally and act locally. That bumper sticker preaches nonsense. The only way we can think and act is locally.

You only need to spend a bit of time thinking about that first statement to realize that it is, in fact, nonsense. Perhaps this might make a bit of sense in the business world (though even that is a stretch), but this idea ultimately falls flat on its face.

What we are really talking about here is community. This notion of "thinking globally" is largely the effort of individuals to separate themselves from whatever place, time, and context they find themselves in. Furthermore, this conscious effort to transcend locality makes this separation intentional, even though they are claiming to still act within some sort of local boundaries.

At the root here is the issue of community. It is unnatural to live any way but locally. No matter where we are, we enter into a very specific place, time, and context and even if we choose to deny it, we cannot live disjointed from that specific locality. In attempting to do so, we forsake that locality and cease to act locally—hence the reason the two stand in opposition, as Muether points out. God has ordained humanity to live in community, and we are responsible for the cultivation of those communities, something we can only do by thinking and acting locally.

There certainly is nothing wrong with what you might call a global consciousness, an awareness of the world at large, both historically and presently—this is actually a very important thing—but that does not fall under the ambiguous idea of "thinking globally." There is a distinction to be made here.

Hopefully it becomes clear how this has considerable implications for the ministry of the Church. The local church is exactly that, a gathering of the people of God from a specific locality. This is the most intentional community there is. If we adopt this untenable mindset of "thinking globally," we inevitably undermine the community of believers that God has called to Himself. We must recognize ourselves as part of the Church universal, but the exercise of our membership in this body takes place in a specific location (at least it should).

What do you think? Also, as a sidenote, do I have any Bulgarian readers who can confirm that the words on the wall in the photo actually say, "think globally, act locally?"

Loading mentions Retweet