The Church is both one and more than that.

The other day after preaching a guy from out of town came up to me and after thanking me for the service told me that ‘the church needs to go back to what it was in the New Testament.’
Now this isn’t a new idea to me. I grew up in a tradition that would have you convinced that they were the closest thing to the early New Testament church.
Of course my response to the guy who said it to me …was the classic reply. "Hey man, I’ve just finished an eleven week series on 1st Corinthians – do you really think we should try to get back to that!"
It was the classic reply. Still perhaps the best reply.
[For an interesting, though slightly naive modern look at the question of getting back to the New Testament kind of church read Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. I say slightly naive because I don't think the book resolves anything, nor does it present a good hermeneutic of history - but, it is certainly interesting.]

But ever since that conversation – questions are rattling around in my head. Leadership questions. Maybe even primal pastor leadership questions.

What is it we are leading …and how do we know we are leading it to the right thing.

Two years ago our church leadership took an adventurous strategic step and we completely redesigned our Sunday services. This was the highly visible catalyst of an even bolder plan to see our church become what we feel it should become in the future years. Wise leadership knew we would end up somewhere so it’s probably best to think through where we would prefer to end up.
But, and this was an essential but …..before we pulled the trigger we spend time, dialogue and study on what theologically is a local church. Beyond our strategic plans, beyond our new design and direction ….peel it all back, strip it down to its birthday suit – what is a local church??

Now this is when this blog begins to get interesting. Stick with me.

Pastors have to first and foremost be theologians. Too many churches set sail on tides of culture, popularity, or reducing church down to the capitalistic mindset of ‘if it produces more people it must be right.’ Yet, it must be theology that guides our leadership.
Calvin rightly taught we are theologian’s first, preachers second.

[The sad thing about most US seminaries or at least their students – they major on subjects that are ‘easier’ than the core biblical theology classes. I remember a fellow student plotting their way through seminary to avoid all the ‘hard courses’ which seemed to always be the theology – either pure or biblical theology courses.]

So as theologian’s pastors have to lead church leaders to examine what it is we are leading.
Simple.

Not.

Pastor-Theologians or Theologian-Pastors offer differing models of church governance – Episcopalian; Presbyterian, Congregationalism, etc - from the one Bible.
Pastor-Theologian or Theologian-Pastors offer differing models of church functioning – Alexandrian model, Antichan model, Jerusalem model – from the one Bible.
Pastor-Theologians or Theologian-Pastors offer differing models of church mission – attractional, engagement, seeker, emerging, incarnational, house church etc, etc – from the one Bible.
Pastor-Theologians or Theologian-Pastors offer differing models of church community - ecumenical model, confessional model or missional model - from the one Bible.
Even the newest emerging church Pastor-Theologians or Theologian-Pastors on the block offer differing models of the new way of churches – Deconstruction model, Pre-Modern model, open Anabaptism model or Foundationalist model. [See interesting blog http://gatheringinlight.com/2008/01/13/the-four-models-of-emerging-churches.]

Every differing model under gird by theology and outworked by pastors birthing churches that look theologically and ecclesiologically distinctively different

So how does a pastor lead effectively when theologians speak differently?
How does theology shape our leadership if theology offers multiple outcomes?

Some might suggest that we go the route of applied theology – that trumps pure theology.
Others suggest we should place a socio-historical or a social-cultural template over our pure theology to explore our right model.

Or ….maybe there’s another angle.

The acceptance of one gospel, many forms – one church, many forms.

Maybe all those models are there, will always be there. Maybe it’s not so much about applied theology, socio or historio interpretation. Maybe there is only one church – but there are clearly different forms in which that one church can be expressed.

Take our cue from the gospel.
Tim Keller writes an intriguing article in Leadership Journal Spring 2008 entitled “The Gospel In All Its Forms.” His premise – like God, the Gospel is both one and more than that.
Take that cue and turn it earth-wards – like God, like the Gospel – the church is both one and more than that.

The job of the Theologian-Pastor is to ensure that the ‘more than that’ is still solidly encased within the ‘one’. The one is not dependent upon applied theology, socio nor historio interpretations – the pastors job is to ensure the one is pure…and then with the one pure – design and interpret in any way that makes the
The church is both a simple formulation and yet multiple contextual presentations. The latter is the linguistic applied theology of the former pure theology.

The pastor leads by outworking both. This means he knows Corinthians, but he doesn’t stay in Corinth. He takes the one he learns in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus…all over Asia Minor and then knowing the one he outworks the multiple that relates most to his or hers socio, historio and cultural context.

The danger – no theology, only pure theology, only applied theology.