Driscoll Watch Continues
As someone who generally welcomes the Reformed Resurgence answer to the reheated liberalism of Emergent, but who is concerned about incipient Christ-obscuring authoritarianism and personality cult lurking in the wings, yet more bold, important, insightful analysis of the MD phenomenon. We need to listen to MacArthur, Phillips, Johnson. So does the strident young preacher in Seattle.

Phillip's review of Driscoll's address at the Gospel Coalition gets close to the heart of what has always troubled me about (enormously successful) guys like this...

And that is what sticks with me and troubles me about Driscoll's talk. It was about him, to a large degree. He was the backdrop, context, and refrain.

I think about the others I've heard. Keller? Preached Christ as the idol-smasher. I didn't have to know anything about Keller. M'man Lig Duncan? Preached Christ's grace and power. I didn't have to know anything about Lig Duncan. Ditto John Piper. Ditto every other I've heard from the conference.

Except Driscoll.

I pray that other mature leaders in this movement will also find courage to help this guy before it's too late. He seems to be surrounded and insulated by layers of young, angry Rehoboam's counselors and enabled by the silence of those who know better but who continue to provide cover.

Mark Driscoll, Calvinism and the Philistine Press

It's a good idea for evangelical Christians to occasionally get the perspective of observers on the outside, and there is arguably no vantage point farther outside the boundaries of Evangelical Christianity than the New York Times. Cal Thomas used to say that each day he tried to read the Bible and the NYT, just so he'd know "what both sides were up to."

So when on January 6th, the New York Times ran this piece on "young-restless-Reformed" pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, my interest was piqued.

Coastal media folks typically get a lot of things wrong about the beliefs, distinctions and defining characteristics of conservative Christians—those mysterious, anachronistic denizens of the great fly-over space between NY and the West Coast. Perhaps it was Driscoll's growing presence in the heart of a coastal Philistine stronghold that engendered this rare journalistic curiosity, I don't know.

Critics on the reformed and evangelical side will find things that writer Molly Worthen gets wrong. For example, the Calvinist/Armininian debate. I'm not really a Calvinist, but I do know that rooms full of theological volumes have been written to nuance, resolve and explain seeming contradictions within that theology. Worthen broadbrushes these and some other issues just a little.

What's more unsettling is the amount she gets right. Summarizing at the very end of the article:

Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.

Now this could be taken in a couple of ways. It could be a compliment, it depends on what you mean by "embolden." Think of the (likely apocryphal) quote attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, "I would rather face 100,000 Italians coming from mass than 1000 Presbyterians rising from their knees." If my Calvin-informed sense of my own "depravity" produces greater humility and greater dependence upon God and leads to fearlessness in service of God and man, good. Humility and boldness are not necessarily at odds. On many levels Driscoll seems to represent that sort of refreshing audacity and courage. Good for him. If it stopped there, everything would be fine.

But Ms. Worthen perceives something else that has been haunting me for some time in regard to the new, young, reformed resurgence; something that the more mature influencers within the movement (Piper, Dever, Carson, MacArthur, Keller and others) desperately need to address. There is another sort of "boldness" that ought to give fellow observers pause. I tried to express it this way, on an earlier post back in May: (apologies for annoying self-quotation!)

...there may be as much to worry about among the young reformed reaction to Emergent. There is a troubling growth of not-very-reformed authoritarian chatter among some of them...Almost as if the right reaction against the emergent loss of scriptural authority is to assert your own authority. Yikes!

What I feared I was sensing in Driscoll and others was not lost on the New York Times (the essential facts, I think, are not disputed). Sometimes "...the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.":

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

They are sinning through questioning? Yikes, indeed. This approach to church leadership has a rather pre-Reformation magisterial stridency about it to say the least! Very sad. I'm not worried about unconventional methods, blunt, even rough language (I like Luther, too) and in-your-face cultural relevance. I am worried about this.

Time for 95 theses on a very hip Seattle warehouse door?

Francis Schaeffer Bios Reviewed
Douglas Groothuis of Denver Seminary reviews two recent volumes on the significance of Schaeffer's contribution to apologetics and Christian philosophy. He winds it up with this:

I fear that the younger generation of evangelicals do not know enough about the remarkable life and achievements of Francis Schaeffer; instead they are opting for the trendy but intellectually barren hype of much of the emergent church movement-which claims to be "authentic." ("Authentic" often means little more than emotional, unconventional, and obsessively autobiographical.) Many older evangelicals may have forgotten many of the salient lessons from his life and teachings as well. Reading these two new biographies can help rectify this problem. But better yet, one can read or reread Schaeffer's own books and watch his two film series (the ten-part, "How Should We Then Live?" and five-part, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" which are both available on DVD). Indeed, Schaeffer did live an "authentic" life-a life of piety, truth, and courage-worthy of our attention and of our thanksgiving to God.

"Authentic" often means little more than emotional, unconventional, and obsessively autobiographical. Sigh. That is a good description of the spirit of this age isn't it? And it explains "reality" television: one minute of something happening followed by 3 minutes of participants alone with the camera telling us how they felt about that one minute.

Lakeland "Outpouring" Analysis from Charisma
We have been watching with fascination and at times horror for several months the satellite TV (GodTV) coverage of the Todd Bentley thing in Florida. What did it mean? Is this Christianity? Is there something wrong with me for finding it appalling? Now that it has imploded, Charisma editor J. Lee Grady offers a post mortem, asks the right questions, and pretty much says what needs to be said. God bless him, good stuff.

In Praise of Great Hymns

On her recent "Poetry Monday" Mrs. D has posted the lyrics to Come Thou Fount of Many Blessings, one that we've both rediscovered lately. The verse I especially love is:

O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.

Alister McGrath in Christianity's Dangerous Idea notes that hymn writing has not come easy for all branches of Protestantism. The Puritan Cotton Mather (1663-1728) meant well but came up with the following: (you might want to pull out all the stops on the pipe organ during this stanza)

Ye monsters of the bubbling deep
Your Maker's praises spout;
Up from the sands ye codlings peep,
And wag your tails about.

McGrath notes "It certainly rhymes. But it's not exactly inspirational."

---------------

The Greek Language, Roman Roads and Starbucks
Musings over a cup of Pike Place Roast

What do all these have in common? Much has been made by Biblical commentators of significant historical providences during an otherwise silent inter-testamental period—between the last book of the Old Testament and the coming of Christ. During that 400 years, two grand empires left behind two great legacies transforming both the speed and effectiveness of communication in the Mediterranean world. Alexander provided the Greek language as the common denominator of commerce and learning, the Romans well-built roads and the freedom to travel on them. Both were intended for human conquest, control and profit, but employed by the feet and pens of the Apostles, invaluable to the spread of the Christian gospel. The rest is world-turned-upside-down history.

Starbucks? Assuming that Common Grace still abounds, I ask what else might be identified, particularly in our time, as useful cultural provisions for the spread of Christianity and the edification of the church? Certainly the printed word, globe-shrinking transportation, radio, television, electronic media, the internet. But one recent development not to be underestimated here in America is the Coffee Shop. "Starbucks," you say? With their ever-so-secular feng shui and nasty new little mermaid logo? Remember, there was nothing particularly Christian about Koine Greek or Roman pavement, and both conveyed many things pagan while at the same time serving infinitely higher purposes. Okay, if you don't like the Seattle original, think Caribou (as I most often do), or Dunn Bros. or whatever else is available where you are, but do think about what the genre has accomplished for human interaction.

What the coffee shop has done for the socially starved and spiritually hungry is remarkable. It has provided a thrifty option, a convenient excuse, a ubiquitous venue for people to get together and talk, read and debate, confess and pray and commiserate and counsel and edify and rebuke and encourage the faint-hearted and weep and laugh and strategize and reflect and google and blog and evangelize and study, test the spirits, examine the scriptures to see if these things be so, ask questions and give answers for the hope that lies within us. In the atmosphere of Starbucks white noise confidentiality, put a coffee cup in my hand, I'm ready to talk.

What did we do before coffee shops? We did lunch and dinner; time-pressure and expense. Bars and pubs; noisy and not usually a good idea. We had people over; still do, but it gets complicated and doesn't happen as readily or spontaneously as meeting at a neutral location. We talked after church; surface-y and truncated, unsatisfying. We used the phone; not as good as face-to-face, and curiously enough, nearly impossible for men. We wrote letters; no we didn't, that was a previous generation.

As on Roman roads and most religious television (now there's a botched providential opportunity!), there are time-wasters, thieves and conspirators too, so the coffee shop can be used for the spread of the worthless and even harmful, but used for good it's just so easy. "Let's meet for coffee" is much more appealing than "can we talk?" So I think it's a 21st Century divine providence. By the way, I say don't sweat the new logo, just appreciate the ambiance and the opportunities and enjoy.

The coffee is better than church basement percolated Folgers too.

Even "Christian" Service?
Having pondered for some time the concept of "The World in the Church," and how the secular idolatry of personal ambition, the "pride of life," worms its way even into spiritual enterprises, I find this thought from D.A. Carson's book, A Call to Spiritual Reformation, concise, sobering and dead-on. His topic is glory, Who gets it and in what limited sense it is reflected derivatively in the believer as Christ is "glorified in you" II Thessalonians 1:2:

The Christian’s whole desire, at its best and highest, is that Jesus Christ be praised. It is always a wretched bastardization of our goals when we want to win glory for ourselves instead of for him.... Lying at the heart of all sin is the desire to be the center, to be like God. So if we take on Christian service, and think of such service as the vehicle that will make us central, we have paganized Christian service; we have domesticated Christian living and set it to servitude in a pagan cause. (57–58)

"Paganized Christian service," I suppose, could describe any ministry activity that in the name of the Gospel becomes a vehicle for personal advancement—that motivates participants by an appeal to a need for recognition or to the attractiveness of being "at the center" of a special elite within the ranks.

Sometimes the phenomenon is accompanied by glaring doctrinal, financial or moral deviation—but not every time. Sadly, since 1st century Galatia there have always been preachers, sects and fringe churches with questionable motives. They followed St. Paul all over Asia and beyond. In anything-goes 21st Century America all varieties abound, but I'm convinced it's not just prosperity groups and the patently weird who set Christian activity into "servitude in a pagan cause."

The system works. Personal ambition is an effective motivator. But it is not Christian, and it is a strange bedfellow with Christian doctrine. Yet precious Christian truth is sometimes called into the service of paganized Christianity. Unity. Discipline. Holiness. Even a passionate emphasis on the Cross of Christ and the extirpation of indwelling sin becomes a convenient tool in the hands of some for the advancement of self and the manipulation of others—lots of humility talk, in reality practicing anything but. Mercifully, there are always tell-tale outward signs of corruption on the inside of these gleaming white dishes. Look carefully and Pharisaical roots are showing.

Watch for subtle legalism; a written or unwritten code of extra-biblical conformity necessary to fit in. Watch for evidence of sectarianism; inwardness, group loyalty and pride that goes beyond mere fraternity. And then authoritarianism; an odd preoccupation with "apostles'" and elders' authority and your submission. Without exception, some kind of highly concentrated pyramid structure inevitably emerges to protect leadership and provide a pathway and footholds for the attention-needy novice on his way up. Elitism is another clue. Are there secretive rings within rings inside the church or organization through which a person must progress toward full acceptance?

I'm more convinced than ever that polity is a reliable objective clue to the health of a church. In any church where the ekklesia, the congregation gathered has no meaningful place, where an imperious leader or group of leaders rule absolutely, as in so many apostolic and shepherding groups even within evangelicalism, the culture-medium is perfect for the kind of bastardization Carson describes—and worse.

Incidentally, the blade cuts in many directions. Personality-driven seeker churches and emergent churches are in danger, some apostolic groups for sure, but surprisingly, there may be as much to worry about among the young Reformed reaction to Emergent. There is a troubling growth of not-very-reformed authoritarian chatter among some of them, and at least one up-and-coming new "Reformed" denomination with very ominous symptoms. Almost as if the right reaction against the emergent loss of scriptural authority is to assert your own authority. Yikes! But that's a topic for another day.

But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. Matthew 20:25, 26

Reading and Listening, (Not Much Watching)

Reading
Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola, George Barna
More in-depth analysis will follow, but finished this one in a few sittings over 2 days with great interest. Off the top impressions: A lot of sacred cow tipping, most of it legitimate and even refreshing, some of it perhaps unnecessarily picky (the chapter on the modern concept of Pastor and how that function even in Reformed and evangelical tradition has devolved into a de facto priesthood class is spot-on and powerful, whereas the chapter on the pagan roots of dressing up for church seems less convincing); voluminous foot-notes and references make up for the deficiency of same in Barna's earlier (and related) title Revolution; a little broad-brushing of church history in order to make the case, which is generally a good one; the only alternative offered for "doing church" is house church—a credible one but I still think there are other models that adequately dispense with most of the dispensable excesses of modern American evangelicalism.
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
Again, this time for discussion at the Twin Cities Chesterton Society meeting in March. The book is 100 years old this year, and more timely and relevant than today's paper. The introduction alone is a hoot. The chapter entitled The Suicide of Thought is worth the price of the book. My daughter Katie (19) has now joined the eclectic company of Chestertonians meeting at the University Club in St. Paul. Cool!
The Passion of Jesus Christ by John Piper
Getting ready for Easter, 50 reasons why Christ had to suffer and die. Biblical, devotional, wonderful.

Listening
Brandi Carlile The Story. A perfect mix of electric alternative and old finger picking (!?!) from a twenty-something Seattle song-writer. The title track is electrifying.
Tommy Emmanuel The Endless Road. Takes acoustic finger picking to unbelievable heights.

Another Blog Forecast

And oh...the last time I issued one of those, such a kerfuffle! (thanks to Gary Miller over at Truth vs. the Machine for teaching me that wonderful word)...but I digress.

I have yet to read a single word of the new George Barna/Frank Viola tome Pagan Christianity, but I shall, and this reporter promises to faithfully render a thoughtful review and in-depth analysis for the enjoyment of all seven of you. OK, all six of you.

Barna's first book (Revolution) on the subject of "what's going on in the church/where is it headed?" was somewhat weakly data-supported considering the author's credentials, but nevertheless a wonderful exploration of the topic. It was of course virulently excoriated by all the usual suspects—those who have a career interest in the declining mega-church, seeker-church, authoritarian-church, corporate-church status quo—because it had the temerity to imply that many of the practitioners and gate-keepers of American evangelicalism may not be—gulp—absolutely necessary! That the wind of the Holy Spirit "blows where it lists," that believers can gather and function and the Church be engaged outside the hallowed worship centers and rented auditoriums, and that "where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty." Don't panic, guys, the sun country Relevance and Next Gen Church Growth convocation is still on....lap-top, check...soul patch, check...snorkel & fins, check...Driscoll book for autograph, check....

(Note: If I knew how to put smiley faces all over, I wouldn't sound so mean-spirited. >emoticon here< I love the Church, even when it's silly!)

Barna's summary research on the subject can be read here. I am having some evil fun with one (slightly unfairly isolated) finding:

Among the pastors least likely to support the legitimacy of house churches were pastors who earn more than $75,000 annually;>emoticon with crooked smile<

The Rest of What Lord Acton Said
His over-quoted but ever-true dictum about "power corrupting" is not usually read in the context of what precedes it. Interesting.

“I cannot accept, your canon that we are to judge pope and king unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they do no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way against holders of power…
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”

Quotable Quotes

From Murray and Spurgeon on the sometimes difficult task of "...rightly dividing the word of truth." (II Tim. 2:15 KJV)

The difference between truth and error is not a chasm but a razor's edge.—John Murray (1898-1975)

Discernment is not a matter of simply telling the difference between what is right and wrong: rather it is the difference between right and almost right. —Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)

Theology is a tricky business. False teaching throughout the history of Christianity begins with the slightest twisting of a text or diversion from principle, even a minor redefinition of words in favor of the innovator's predilections. The only corrective has been free, open, often excruciating "contending for the faith," sometimes arguing over seeming minutae—"on the razor's edge." Great, solid, resilient doctrines have been formed and clarified in the crucible of controversy from the Jerusalem Council onward. It's been fascinating to me over the last few years of reading (and experience), how in the development of aberrant Christian groups one of the first things insidiously ruled out has always been internal or external doctrinal debate—too "contentious," "divisive" or "distracting" —solidifying the position of leaders but effectively closing the door to any restorative influence, insulating the group from change or growth and ensuring a continuation of error.

In the political sphere you also encounter that "fine line" dividing true public virtue from moral insanity. For example: It is always a Christian virtue to care for the weak and needy. But is it Christian virtue to entrust that task to an ever more oppressive, confiscatory secular state—in the name of Christian virtue? True compassion flows from an ethic which rightly values life originating in the command "Thou shalt not kill." But should that compassion be implemented at the casting aside of another Christian virtue rooted in the command "Thou shalt not steal?" My good friends on the religious left seem to think so.

These are indeed times for discernment—and drawing fine lines.

Mere Christianity

My son Tim and I are nearly finished with a chapter-by-chapter book study of this Lewis classic, and I'm reminded once again why it's a classic. His manner is modest and unassuming. He never leverages his mastery of the language in order to remind you of his own brilliance, but uses it to make complex ideas about God, philosophy and apologetics simple, accessible and clear.

His friendly style doesn't prevent him from cutting to the heart of, for example, "contemporary" Theology. The double irony of the following comment on the importance of studying Theology and on Theological "novelties" (from his intro to Beyond Personality, the final section of the book) is that it was written in 1943.

In other words, Theology is practical; especially now. In the old days, when there was less education and discussion, perhaps it was possible to get on with a very few simple ideas about God. But it is is not so now. Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones—bad, muddled out-of-date ideas. For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today, are simply the ones which real theologians tried centuries ago and rejected.

The new approaches of 18th and 19th century skepticism (on the authority of the Bible and the meaning of the Cross) had only recently been embraced as new thoughts by mainline denominations when Lewis wrote this. Sadly, they are being "trotted out" as novelties again in 2007 by New Evangelicals, Post-Evangelicals and others.

These and other equally muddled notions are easily absorbed by groups and individuals who don't place a high value on Theology (or history, for that matter) generally and learn only from each other and their own experiences.

Demas and Bonocus
The Sacred Sandwich offers this to the subject of cultural relevance.

Re-visiting Mars Hill and Relevance

Acts 17 has long been appealed to as a pattern for the way in which Christians ought to engage unbelieving culture—Paul's appeal to "your own poets" and reference to their monument to the "unknown God" particularly.

Russell D. Moore's Retaking Mars Hill in September's Touchstone addresses what really happened that day in Athens (it's high time somebody did) and challenges much of the evangelical and emergent silliness perpetrated in the name of reaching the world. We are, it seems, either aping pop culture to be more attractive or embracing pop culture to be more authentic. The Apostle, on closer examination, attempted and cared for neither. Just one of many insights here:

Often at the root of so much Christian “engagement” with pop culture lies an embarrassment about the oddity of the gospel. Even Christians feel that other people won’t resonate with this strange biblical world of talking snakes, parting seas, floating axe-heads, virgin conceptions, and emptied graves. It is easier to meet them “where they’re at,” by putting in a Gospel According to Andy Griffith DVD (for the less hip among us) or by growing a soul-patch and quoting Coldplay at the fair-trade coffeehouse (for the more hip among us).

Knowing Andy Griffith episodes or Coldplay lyrics might be important avenues for talking about kingdom matters, but let’s not kid ourselves. We connect with sinners in the same way Christians always have: by telling an awfully freakish-sounding story about a man who was dead, and isn’t anymore, but whom we’ll all meet face-to-face in judgment.

His observations of contemporary Christian music are especially painful—and accurate.

And I've only just gotten started on my soul-patch.

Counter-Culturally Relevant

The C.S. Lewis Institute publishes a newsletter/magazine called Knowing and Doing...quarterly, perhaps? Not sure. The current issue features a short but excellent biography of William Wilberforce. You can download the pdf here.

Wilberforce seems to have been able to balance "knowing and doing," the subjective and objective, a substantial evangelical faith within himself and the application of deep convictions to issues in the public square. His witness was powerfully relevant to his culture but never lost it's footing. He suffered the scorn and contempt of popular culture, but doggedly continued his cause against the slave trade (and against the decline of public morals) all of his adult life. So much of what current evangelicalism tells us we need to do in order to be relevant seems to be little more than concession and accommodation to popular culture, not confrontation of it. We want to be liked, and when we're liked—we're relevant.

Join the Emergent Conversation

Begin by learning the language. Here's a helpful glossary to get you started. Some of my favorites:

• Absolutes - A concept we must absolutely avoid.
• Atonement - Theory of divine child abuse that appeals to vampire Christians who want Jesus for his blood
• Authentic - Being one’s real, sinful, doubting self (and proud of it).
• Bible - A book through which subjective enlightenment comes to us as we live in community.
• Conversation - Equally confused people guessing what things might be “true” and guessing what “true” might mean.
• Criticism - 1. Something to which we must be radically open when given by non-Christians. 2. Something to which we must be absolutely closed when given by conservative Christians. 3. Something conservative Christians should accept from us.

These are just a few of the a-b-c's, so grab your half-caf, extra-hot grande (I thought I said "extra hot"... OK?...just bring it to the table) and pull up a chair. Today's topic: authentic missional communities and the urban poor...

Something Other Than a Baby Boomer's Bright Idea

From Frederica Matthews-Green who has carefully documented her path into Eastern Orthodoxy, answering why so many in this generation are attracted to it:

Orthodoxy itself is appealing, I think, initially because it is visibly beautiful, and because it is rooted in something other than a Baby Boomer’s bright idea.

Hear, hear, evangelical and emergent innovators. I might add "or a GenX/Yer's bright idea" , but it's a pretty good working description of the shifting sands beneath American evangelicalism, isn't it? Maybe it's high time for something old.

And a bonus unrelated thought from the great non-baby-boomer curmudgeon/philosopher/theologian/poet Gilbert Keith Chesterton on seeing and appreciating God's world:

[Children] always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy: for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.
—From Orthodoxy

Thanks Be to God for the Local Church

There is a dried soup mix from Great Harvest Bakery sitting on our kitchen counter that reminds me daily what a wonderful thing the local church is.

Ever since Mrs. D, our personal Food Network at the D house, began her painful odyssey from a skating accident through wrist surgery and recovery, it looked like meal generation was largely going to fall into the less-than-capable hands of the resident curmudgeon. A week and a half ago on our school group field trip to Great Harvest Bakery, I picked up that soup mix with the complimentary bag of dinner rolls, thinking it was something I could handle for that evening's meal.

It's still on the counter. Why? Because of the local church. Which one? The one comprised of a whole group of dear Christian family and friends who keep showing up (unsolicited, coordinated "only" by love and the Holy Spirit) with generous (and better) meals. And, I should add, the hard work and burgeoning skills of the resident D kids.

It's now a running joke. "OK dad, when are we gonna make that soup?" We will sooner or later. Maybe Mrs. D will do it. She could one-hand it into shape better than I can with two.

But thanks to all of you (you know who you are) who have been so unbelievably kind.

From the Sacred Sandwich
YOUTH PASTOR OVERSEES NEW MINISTRY FOR "XTREME" ELDERLY

January 2006 --- Hot on the heels of leading a wildly successful, culturally relevant youth group at Keystone Community Church, Youth Pastor Tad Grunholtz has recently created a similar ministry for the elderly in hopes of luring disaffected old people back into church. He calls the group Xtreme Seniors. “A lot of churches today just focus on the younger generation and ignore the elder members of the church,” explained Grunholtz. “But at Keystone, we came to the sudden realization during our last building campaign that old people have all the money. Sure, the youth are the future of the church, but we need a new gymnasium now.”

Using his thriving youth program as a template, Grunholtz has done away with the boring “Golden-Agers” Bible study group that was such a turn-off to many seniors...

Thinking More About Church: Part III
You Are Brothers

This leads me naturally to the second text (see Part II) and metaphor that I am drawn to. Seldom quoted, at least in my hearing, a text that answers with real authority the most basic church question. If bridegroom and bride picture the great mystery of what our relationship to Christ is, what is to characterize our relationship to one another?

The New Paradigm

“But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.” –Matthew 23:8-10 ESV

This is the Lord’s clear and utterly revolutionary statement. In context it represents a defining moment. The veil of the temple will remain intact for only a little while longer, and the priesthood of the old covenant will be no more. There will be one priest and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (I Timothy 2:5). This is a shocking new thought for a sacerdotal, priesthood-based religion, and for those sitting “on Moses’s seat” (23:2).

The implications are clear for authority structures as well as for personal salvation. At the very moment when through Christ the relationship between God and man enters a new era, so also changes the role of man to man within the household of God. The change-over will begin at the cross, be completed at the resurrection and experienced fully at the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit on the church at Pentecost.

Practically speaking, Jesus prescribes what it means for human interaction. He begins by showing what that human interaction is not to be like, and the scribes and Pharisees are his exhibit A. They put burdens on others, they do their good deeds to be seen by others, they love the place of honor, the insider greetings in the marketplace, and being called rabbi by others. They are preoccupied with position, with authority, and they lord it over their followers.

“But you are not to be called rabbi...father...instructor...you have one rabbi...one Father...one instructor, the Christ.” The Logos of God, expressed in the word of God, the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit speaks straight to the heart of the believer.

The Mis-Use of Authority

Many in the church down through the centuries never lost this precious truth. The story of the “Pilgrim Church” in E.H. Broadbent’s classic by that name is a wonderful chronicle of the genuine church’s quiet, humble and faithful history.

But in Europe things had sadly deteriorated by the close of the middle ages. So from this and other texts the Reformers thundered. They called the western church back from what Luther described as its “Babylonian Captivity,” it’s regression into Pharisaical usurpation of spiritual authority. The church, its pope, its bishops and its councils had arrogated to themselves the authority of Holy Spirit and scripture. Their abuses were evident. They had driven a wedge between Christ and his people and the harm to the people of God was serious.

But it’s important to remember what the pretext was for Rome’s exercise of that false authority. The pretext was “purity.” It was their task to protect the church and the gospel from the corruption and the twisting of the faith certain to result if the ignorant masses were permitted to read and interpret the scripture for themselves. In the process they came to see themselves as the exclusive master and teacher of the people and the institution as the "vicar of Christ."

The church’s pastors and leaders had become tyrannical masters, even of the dissemination and interpretation of God’s word. Loyalty to the church became synonymous with loyalty to God. In some of the darkest days in church history that followed, men and women paid with their own blood for suggesting that it should be otherwise.

The Protestant Reformation

A friend of mine said the other day, "We're Protestants? What was it we were protesting? Nothing less than abuse of authority...." I think he's right. Reformers protested vigorously and in the Westminster Confession we have a concise summary of the heart of their message, what came to be known as Sola Scriptura, the doctrine of the final authority of scripture in the life of the believer:

“The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” —Chapter 1, Article 10

Consistent with Jesus’ teaching, this approach to spiritual authority stands in bold contrast to any interpretation that brings a man or a group of men into the position of rabbi, master, master teacher or guru in a local or national or worldwide context.

So What Is the Role of Church Leadership?

Again as in the discussion of the church as bride, questions arise: What about texts that speak of offices of authority within the church? Teachers, shepherds, overseers? What about Paul’s references to being like a father and mother to the Thessalonians, and to Timothy his “son” in the faith? How do these square with Matthew 23? There are hermeneutical starting points that bring things into balance. One is included in the Westminster Confession (1.9) and reminds us to “interpret scripture with scripture.” Read each in the light of the others. Another principle is the interpretation of narrative (story, personal expression, account) in the light of the didactic (clear statement of truth, general instruction, command).

On that basis we might draw the following conclusions. Every relational role or gifted office must be measured by and in the light of Jesus’ clear command. Every administrative function also. Consider Jesus’ categories and the questions to ask of ourselves and our churches:

A gifted teacher is never a rabbi. The term rabbi, sometimes translated “my master,” is pretty close to our idea of “guru” or “spiritual guide” in new age parlance. Though he preaches the Word with “all authority,” his authority for directing the spiritual life of his students goes only as far as scripture speaks and no farther. In their celebrity status or claimed “anointing,” do our teachers assume the posture of something more than a conveyor of what God says in scripture?

Making disciples is a good thing and is our calling, but a discipler is never a master. If a relationship between disciple and mentor is more like servant to master, it is in violation of the New Testament relationship standard. Does the mentoring relationship I’m in require submission and conformity that goes beyond scripture into matters of personal preference and freedom? Even a little bit?

Leadership is necessary for order and ministry to continue, but leaders are not parents. Paul speaks affectionately of Timothy as his son in the faith, but measured against Mt. 23, the Bible never allows for a condescending, patronizing relationship between leaders and congregation, individually or collectively. Any church setting where leadership effectively gives its members a glass of water and sends them off to bed while they (the leaders) have the really important conversations and make the important decisions needs to be re-evaluated.

Of course leaders will meet together and work together uniquely to accomplish their tasks, but they do so with the authority of and in the service of the whole body. There are highly practical implications. Any scenario where the money and property of a church is managed exclusively by the leaders and those they deputize should be watched carefully. All of this flows from a Matthew 23-violating condescension, a parent/child, master/servant assumption unacceptable in the spirit of the new covenant. In my church is there a practice or any tone of parental condescension?

“You are brothers” is the key phrase. Matthew 23 does not deny leadership, eldership, order and discipline within the church. It does, however, establish inviolable boundaries and limits on human authority and reminds us that there are finally to be no real divisions in Christ. The newest believer and the oldest saint are brothers. That’s the starting point of biblical fellowship.

Why Belabor the Obvious?

I’d like to think most of this is pretty clearly understood around Protestantism, but I’m not sure. In the evangelical world we’re clear on the idea of singular papal authority (we don’t accept it), but we do seem inclined to enshrine a thousand little popes and councils and lords and feifdoms instead and allow them similar excesses–again driving an unnecessary wedge between Christ and his bride and between brothers.

No offense intended to faithful men and their ministries, but in some corners the children and step-children of the Pharisees are alive and well. The division between clergy and laity is sometimes too great. The power and anointing assumed borders on presumption. The structure is too Old Testament. Some in the name of reaching the world become cults of celebrity, some in the name of aggressive disciple making become controlling and even cultic. In the spirit of Ephesians 4 and Matthew 23, the church can and will do better. There are fresh and encouraging winds blowing that some have referred to as a “new reformation,” a new discovery of what God can do “through all” the church, the people of God.

“There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
–Ephesians 4:4-6 ESV