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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Thanks for opening the door on this conversation, Gilbert. I trust it will be an ongoing conversation. In my consulting and coaching of churches across America I have learned (sadly) that very few have an even rudimentary understanding the church.
When coaching churches through the envisioning process which begins with the articulation of their core beliefs and core values, without fail, the two core beliefs they struggle with are "Church" and worship. Bottom line - they struggle because they have no theology of church or worship. They have no meaningful biblical or theological understanding of either crucial area.
Without a deep, biblical foundation churches fail to to "be" the church and consequently don't "do" church very well either.
I think you are onto something important with your suggestion that the church is at the same time simple (one in its purpose) and complex (multi-faceted in its expressions).
Over the years I have seen highly effective churches in an amazing variety of often contradictory shapes. The common denominator I have noted though is a crystal clear focus on the Great Commission. They know their purpose. Without a doubt they are in the business of making disciples. They are passionate about reaching lost people for Jesus. They aggressively and intentionally work at developing mature disciples. They understand that mature disciple are obedient Christ-followers who are being used of God to help others become obedient Christ-followers.
In most cases, the shape these highly effective churches have assumed has been the result of trial and error. In the end they have decided on a way to "do" church because it has helped them be the disciple-making church they understand God calls them to be.
Bill Hoyt, NexStep Coaching and Consulting, Growing Healthy Churches
Thanks Bill for your comments.
I agree that one of the struggles leaders seem to have is the distinguishing between what the church does and what the church is. The ‘do’ versus the ‘be’ conundrum.
The church has an identity shaped by something greater than our functioning – it is shaped by our origin.
This, as you rightly say, required pastors to not only have a theology of the church, but also a theology of worship.
The Reformers see our identity as wrapped up fully in the Word and the Table. As Henri de Lubac wrote “If Christ is the sacrament of God, the Church is for us the sacrament of Christ”. This incarnational view of the church is then presented in the Word and the Table. Christ dwells among the people and the church is present “wherever the Word of God is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered.” Classic reformed theology.
While I embrace much of that thinking, I think it remains inadequate and still suggests ‘do’ more than ‘be’. For the Reformers, the Church on earth is not a divine presence although it does have a divine calling.
However, my biggest issue with a strong Reformed definition of church is that it makes the ‘be’ of our identity invisible. Luther called it ‘a spiritual, inner Christendom’.
I think our identity, who we are, cannot be something invisible. At the same time our visibility cannot only come from what we do.
Throughout the New Testament who we are is always presented in picture images nor metaphor. Undoubtedly this is because it is impossible to give a succinct definition of the church.
Paul Minear suggests there are over eighty such images and yet amongst those eighty there are four that rise to the surface more often – the people of God; the new creation; the fellowship of faith; and the body of Christ.
I would go one step further.
Think about Christ – does Christ save because that is what he does or does Christ save because that is who he is?
Think now about the church – No image exists outside of Christ’s redemptive work. Our identity as the church does not exists outside of the Gospel. We are only the people of God because of the Gospel; we are only a new creation because of Christ’s redemptive work; we are the fellowship of faith only because of the Gospel; we are the body of Christ because of the broken body of Christ.
We are only because of Christ.
Our identity is fully wrapped up in Christ – not only what he does but who he is.
We could say it this way – our identity is Christ.
That is bigger than the Word and the Table though it includes such.
The church’s identity, our be-ing, is Jesus.
There is no deeper yet simpler theology.
Gilbert .....keeping it going - feel free to join in.
I have added to my list of things to do on a regular basis-checking out both of your blogs. I enjoy them very much and look forward to each new one. They are informative, interesting and challenging.
Lorie Ham
OK, fellas. I'm willing to jump, though I feel fairly inadequate to do so.
I have struggled for years with the perception I (and outsiders) have of the many churches, many versions of the bible, many denominations, many ancient books and traditions.
I came to the point of thinking that many churches were more centered around a personality trait of comfort level of the church members. I think what I am reading supports that. That many churches are centered around cultural preferences rather than biblical or theological decisions.
It's funny and sad to me that when you discuss the deeper things that people of differing traditions/denominations/cultural preferences or whatever, you can have very good conversations. But when you discuss the less important things of how that is worked out, it becomes very defensive. On occasion, it may become argumentative (in the good sense of arguing), but more often, people cling to the less significant and don't care or grasp the deeper significance of the theological issues -"The church’s identity, our be-ing, is Jesus. There is no deeper yet simpler theology" as Gilbert said.
A friend gave me the movie "The Mission" once and asked me to tell him who was right after viewing. I won't review the film, but my response was they were both right. One man died fighting for the church, the other died standing in nonviolent protest.
I felt the core of who they were/what they did was based on simple theology and how they worked it out was based on their individual gifts, if you will. At the time, I was fully engaged in breaking out of my either/or upbringing and embracing the both/and mindset.
As I write this, I wonder if the man who fought violently for the cause was wrong, because of Jesus' example on the cross and his scolding of Peter when he lopped off the soldier's ear. Not sure this is an essential discussion, but seems relevant as the American church seeks to remake itself. A better example surely exists.
Ed Boling
lowly member of a church led by a quirky scottish theologian-pastor
Post a Comment