John Stott, in discussing the necessity of pastors to be sincere in what they preach, cites a story in his book, Between Two Worlds, about the 18th century philosopher, David Hume:

A friend once met [Hume] hurrying along a London street and asked him where he was going. Hume replied that he was going to hear George Whitefield preach. 'But surely,' his friend asked in astonishment, 'you don't believe what Whitefield preaches, do you?' 'No, I don't,' answered Hume, 'but he does.' (269-270)

Whitefield had a transparent sincerity that attracted Hume. So it must be with us. John Poulton has said, "The most effective preaching comes from those who embody the things they are saying. They are the message."

That couldn't be more true.

Loading mentions Retweet

Earlier this year, I was in a discussion on what role home visitation should play in the ministry of a church. Home visitation basically entails a visit by the pastoral staff or elders of a church to each family or member of the congregation in their respective homes to inquire about their spiritual well-being, and to provide support, encouragement, and instruction. A few days ago I quoted the Puritan minister, Richard Baxter, on this very issue. Baxter understood how crucial it was for the minister (and by extension, the elders or other pastoral staff responsible for spiritual oversight) to engage in this sort of work. It would not be a stretch to say that for Baxter, the very life of the church, or at least its vitality, hinged on faithfully carrying out this practice.

To be honest, I was quite shocked by the response of most of those I was talking with; most felt reticent about their churches engaging in such a practice because it would infringe on the privacy of the members of the church and would implicitly communicate that the leadership of the church was seeking some sort of totalitarian dominance over the lives of its parishioners.

At first I thought maybe they conceived of this as an antiquated practice, done in the days when ministers were not as conscious of being relational or relevant (to borrow a few modern terms) in their ministry. But then it occured to me that perhaps part of the reason some might hesitate to engage in such a practice is simply because they are living in a culture that incessantly bombards them with the message that they are autonomous individuals, subject only to their own authority and responsible only for themselves. The 18th and 19th centuries wove into the fabric of Western – and especially American – culture an aversion toward authority, which has largely defined the Christianity of this culture as well. The emphasis turns on the individual as the primary unit, whether it is an over-emphasis on personal salvation or turning subjective experiences and feelings into objective standards of theology and practice. In turn, this means the individual has full responsibility over their life and spirituality, and the church is there to serve them and meet their felt needs.

But that's not how it is supposed to work in the church.

When you are baptised into the church, either as an infant or later in life upon professing faith, you are brought into a family. You are no longer an autonomous individual, but you have been bound to the community of believers who have a shared identity as those called by God to be his people. Naturally, this does not entail giving up your individuality – indeed, Scripture lauds this as a great gift to the church – but it is a declaration that you now belong to a covenant family, living a shared life together as children of the heavenly Father.

If you have spent any time living with as part of a family, you understand this already. Each member of the family has his or her own life, of course, but the nature of family life, even something as simple as living in the same house, means that these individual lives are going to constantly cross paths. And this crossing of paths is not something that family members try to avoid, but they recognise it as an important part of their life together. A family supports each other, encourages each other, and will call each other to account if need be.

Like a family, this is how it is to be in the church. Your life becomes the life of the others you live together with. While you certainly retain a measure of responsibility for your personal life, this responsibility is also taken up by the other members of the church. Many congregations will make vows to either the parents of a child or to a professing believer on the occasion of their baptism to support them, pray for them, and nurture them in their Christian walk. An extra measure of responsibility for this task is given to the leaders of the church. Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus make the importance of spiritual oversight very clear. Likewise, the author of the letter to the Hebrews, clearly a pastor himself, makes mention at numerous points of looking after the spiritual well-being of those he wrote to.

When I was growing up, my father served as an elder in Christian Reformed congregations in Toronto and Bradford, Ontario, for many years and he will tell you that home visitation was among the most blessed and fruitful time of his ministry as an elder. This was largely because he came to really know the members of the congregation under his oversight, and he then knew how to minister to them more effectively. Now, of course, there are some factors that will determine how successful this practice is, and perhaps key in this regard is ensuring the church has godly elders or pastoral leaders; this was a major concern for Baxter in his discussion of the matter.

I know that there are plenty of pastors and church leaders who understand all this and practice it in one way or another. But I think there is a lot of wisdom and benefit to be gained from practicing it in a systematic way, ensuring that during a period of a year, each member or family of a congregation gets to visit with the church leaders responsible for pastoral oversight. This method has something of a proven historical track record since it has been done for centuries. The simple act itself of stepping into someone's home is an intentional way of deepening the level of intimacy and trust in the relationship of the pastor and parishioner. It is a very concrete way of saying to each member of the church, 'We care deeply for you.' All of this lends itself on the one hand to fostering the spiritual growth of a congregation, and on the other hand to strengthening the bond of fellowship of the church as the members come to understand what it means to be a family.

The Christian life was never meant to be lived alone. Don't think of spiritual oversight as an intrusion into your private life, but welcome it as a blessing. God intends for the leaders he appoints to the church to shepherd his flock because, in Isaiah's words, we all like sheep will go astray and turn to our own ways. The church was designed from the beginning to be a family, and her members are intended to live their life together. Our journey through life is enriched and deepened when we travel with others and help each other stay on the path.

So make a cup of tea, invite the leaders of your church into the living room, and share your lives with each other. Because in the end, it's all about the family.

(Below I've attached a PDF file of a chapter on home visitation from a book my father was given when he first became an elder, called The Elder's Handbook. I believe the authors come out of the Christian Reformed Church. It contains a bit of rationale for the practice, as well as some practical tips for how to do it. I think there are some really helpful suggestions here.)

Loading mentions Retweet

I am a big fan of getting together with a bunch of theologically-minded guys and spending a few hours together now and then talking about what we have been reading, working through issues that come up in our ministry, or mulling over big questions we have been asking and wrestling with. The preferred setting for this is a pub or coffeeshop, although I'm also perfectly happy to do so while working under the hood of a car, or walking down a city street, or sitting in my living room.

John Stott wished for this sort of thing as well, as a means for ministers to keep their minds sharp and to build each other up. He writes of this being a good practice with a proven historical track record in his book, Between Two Worlds:

I often find myself wishing that local clergy gatherings, whether denominational or interdenominational, could be more effective in stimulating thought. When we meet, we are no doubt obliged to transact some business, but we could also encourage one another in study. The second half of the eighteenth century was the great time for the founding of societies for English clergy, especially evangelicals. The first was Samuel Walker's 'Clerical Club' in Truro (c. 1750), whose purpose was to 'strengthen each other's hands in the work of the Lord'. During the following years about ten others arose in different parts of the country. 'Why may we not meet to pray, when others meet to play at the bowls?' asked Thomas Robinson of Leicester. 'Why may we not have deliberative assemblies, when others of our brethern have their dancing and drinking assemblies? Why may we not seek to edify each other, whilst they care not if they corrupt one another?' The most famous and influential of these clubs was the Eclectic Society, founded in 1783 by John Newton, ex-sea captain and slave trader, but at that time Rector of St Mary Woolnoth in the city of London, and his friends. They met every other Monday. 'We begin with tea,' wrote Newton (the teapot is preserved in the Church Missionary House in London); 'then a short prayer introduces a conversation for about three hours upon a proposed subject, and we seldom flag.' He added that the group deserved to be called the Royal Society since 'I trust the members are all of the royal family, and the King Himself condescends to meet with us.' (190)

Not mentioned in Stott's list is the 'White Horse Inn' of Cambridge, or even Martin Luther's frequent practice of having students over to his home for dinner and home-brewed beer to talk about all kinds of different issues; undoubtedly there are many more groups like these. This sort of thing is, I think, a very healthy practice and worth engaging in on a regular basis. Blogging, of course, is one outlet for me to work through all kinds of things I read and think about and questions I am working through, but I would never substitute it entirely for face-to-face conversation with friends, colleagues and mentors. That kind of interaction is invaluable.

So, who'd like to go get a drink or a cup of coffee?

Loading mentions Retweet

One of the best known works of the Puritan minister, Richard Baxter, is The Reformed Pastor, written around 1656 while he was vicar of St Mary's Church in Kidderminster. The content had originally been composed by him for an association of ministers from Worcestershire, and Baxter had intended the book to help them in their efforts to form godly, worshiping communities in that county.

Having been on my shelf for some time (and now that I am post-serminary and thus afforded time to read whatsoever I desire), I began to read the book the other day. I was immediately taken by something in Baxter's dedication, where he urged his fellow ministers to be intimately involved in the lives of their parishioners. The responsibilities of a pastor went beyond what took place during a Sunday service; it included the nurture of the families and individuals within the congregation, visiting with them to teach, admonish, and encourage them in the faith. Baxter makes six points in regard to these responsibilites (slightly paraphrased here):

1. People must be taught the principles of religion, and matters of greatest necessity to salvation.
2. They must be taught it in the most edifying, advantageous way.
3. Personal conference, examination, and instruction, hath many excellent advantages for their good.
4. Personal instruction is recommended to us by Scripture, and by the practice of the servants of Christ, and approved by the godly of all ages.
5. We should perform this great duty to all the people, or as many as we can; for our love and care of their souls must extend to all. If there are five hundred or a thousand ignorant people in your parish or congregation, it is a poor discharge of your duty, now and then to speak to some few of them, and to let the rest alone in their ignorance, if you are able to afford them help.
6. It is not less certain, that so great a work as this is should take up a considerable part of our time.

This being only the dedication, Baxter does not elaborate on the points made, but something of the importance he attaches to this aspect of pastoral work comes out already in this short list. Just a few pages later, however, he issues a far more urgent plea to ministers for engaging in pastoral work among their flock:

You have put your hand to the plough; you are doubly devoted to [God], as Christians, and as pastors; and dare you, after this, draw back and refuse his work? You see the work of reformation at a stand; and you are engaged by many obligations to promote it: and dare you now neglect the means by which it must be done? Will you show your faces in a Christian congregation, as ministers of the gospel, and there pray for a reformation, and for the conversion and salvation of your hearers, and for the prosperity of the Church; and when you have done, refuse to use the means by which all this must be effected?

Baxter continues by saying that this aspect of their work as ministers is just as important as their preaching. This kind of involvement in the lives of the members of a congregation fosters a relationship in which the minister demonstrates great love and care for the parishioner and, in turn, the parishioner is given to humbly respect and submit to the authority of the minister. Now, this is not a totalitarian sort of authority, but the authority of one who has been called by God to shepherd his flock in a certain place. The authority is not derived from himself, but from his call and ordination to faithfully teach and proclaim the whole counsel of God. And his carrying out of this work is solely for the purpose of nurturing the faith of the congregation, for building them up and edifying them in order that they might increasingly live for the glory of the Lord, and as faithful witnesses to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For this reason, a minister's work does not take place only within an hour and a half time slot on a Sunday morning; in reality, it is a task that is never crossed off his 'to-do' list. Baxter understood the gravity and immensity of the minister's calling, and that is why he wrote this book. I am really looking forward to going deeper in this book and learning from Baxter's pastoral wisdom.

In a day or two, I will return to this issue with some thoughts on the place of this type of pastoral work in the church today.

Loading mentions Retweet

John Stott is well-known for his advocacy of expository preaching. In his book, Between Two Worlds, he says that to "expound Scripture is to bring out of the text what is there and expose it to view. The expositor prizes open what appears to be closed, makes plain what is obscure, unravels what is knotted, and unfolds what is tightly packed." The intent of such preaching is nothing more than setting forth the truth of Scripture in a manner that is plain – and excuse the buzzwords  – relevant and applicable.

Stott goes on in his book to set out what he feels are some of the strongest arguments for expository preaching, one of which is the recognition that exposition imposes limits upon the preacher. He writes,

It restricts us to the scriptural text, since expository preaching is biblical preaching. We are not expounding a passage from either secular literature or a political speech or even a religious book, let alone our own opinions. No, our text is invariably taken from God's Word. The very first qualification of expositors is the recognition that we are guardians of a sacred 'deposit' of truth, 'trustees' of the gospel, 'stewards of the mysteries of God.'

Not many people like the idea of being confined by something, or being limited by something external to themselves, but when it comes to preaching, there really is no other option if we are to faithfully proclaim the truth of Scripture. Stott quotes Donald Coggan, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who noted that it was, in fact, a joy to be confined as a preacher by the Word of God:

The Christian preacher has a boundary set for him. When he enters the pulpit, he is not an entirely free man. There is a very real sense in which it may be said of him that the Almighty has set him his bounds that he shall not pass. He is not at liberty to invent or choose his message: it has been committed to him, and it is for him to declare, expound and commend it to his hearers... It is a great thing to come under the magnificent tyranny of the Gospel!

I quite like that, the "tyranny of the Gospel." It is, indeed, an absolute authority that we come under when we submit ourselves to Lordship of Jesus Christ and his Word. It demands our complete and unfailing loyalty. But yet it is under that authority that we find the most faithful and the most powerful preaching.

Loading mentions Retweet