Ecclesiology


I realize that not all the Conn-versation authors are in the PCA but I wanted to direct attention to what I believe is a very well put together discussion around last years Denominational Renewal Conference for the PCA (it was not an official conference but a few hundred pastors and seminarians turned out). Here’s the links and the schedule for the next five weeks;

CGO Forum on Denominational Renewal Conference

Sept. 15-Oct.17

The structure is as follows:

Mondays- Simpatico response

Tuesdays- Critical response

Wednesdays- Women or minority voices in the PCA response

Thursdays- Outside of the PCA response

Fridays- Original speaker of the talk at Denominational Renewal responds to the respondents (more…)

Just as I was ready to recycle yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, I took a quick flip through to make sure I hadn’t missed anything interesting.  Glad I did!  Yesterday’s edition featured an interesting book review of Julia Duin‘s new book Quitting Church.  Duin, the religion reporter for the Washington Times, analyzes what she characterizes as an epidemic in church-quitting among evangelicals.

Her thesis struck a chord.  I’ve already done this once, may yet again, and all of my reasons were among those reported in the WSJ review.  She discusses lack of community; insipid teaching; failure to reach the souls of the suffering; emphasis on families over singles; and inefficient leadership models.  Her two biggies, however, are problems with pastors and the sidelining of women.  Pastors who are out of touch, or personally unhappy, or fail to shepherd, or caught in scandal, or high-handedly controlling are a major reason people move on.  She goes on to note that women leave because they are underutilized in their churches.  Duin speaks from experience as an “unwanted woman.”  She holds a Masters in Religion from Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. 

Duin’s book points up the neglected need in all churches to monitor and take to heart the back door problem.  I can’t tell you the number of public and private meetings in which I’ve participated over the years that only address growth questions from the front door – how many people have we added?  The number of new members and attenders is of no value unless it is presented along with the loss of members and attenders.  The second number is usually more important than the first.  Why do people who have spent time in your church, gotten to know you, and likely made a commitment of time, talent, and treasure leave?  By the time they’re gone, it’s probably too late, but few people who have committed at any level leave all at once unless it’s related to a move.  First, they slow down or stop giving.  Then, their attendance gets infrequent as they shop around.  Only once they find another home do they withdraw altogether. 

Church leaders who don’t monitor their attendance, and who fail to follow up on those in the process of quitting and who have left are missing a major source of insight as they try to figure out how to minister well in the place that God has put them.

An article by N.T. Wright, entitled “Kingdom Come: The Public Meaning of the Gospels,” appeared in Christian Century on June 17, 2008.

Regarding common approaches to the gospel, Wright notes how approaches to the Gospels (in the West, in recent history) have tended to give exclusive attention toward either Jesus’ announcement of the kingdom (and, so, social gospel readings) or Jesus’ death and resurrection (and, so, individual salvation-of-souls readings). I appreciated his “third way,” so to speak, of looking at the Gospels. He avoids a private/public dichotomizing of these Scriptures. And he goes on to ask how the church should live out its kingdom calling–its “biblical commitment to ‘doing God in public’” (33).

I thought this was a worthwhile read for someone who does little reading these days. And I was glad to see it appear in Christian Century. I’ll be interested to hear what others have to say.

I thought I would make a short post on this. Many of the contributors of this blog, and certainly some of its readers, know Daniel Kirk. Daniel is a MDiv graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (2000). He subsequently completed a PhD in New Testament from Duke University’s Department of Religion, studying under Richard Hays, E.P. Sanders, and Joel Marcus, among others. He wrote a fascinating dissertation on Resurrection in Romans, how Paul re-understood and re-told the significance of Israel in the light of Christ. His advisor was none other than Richard Hays, whose writings certainly molded my thought on Paul and the communal significance of Paul for the church more than anyone else’s writings. Daniel commences his job as a professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary this coming Fall.

 

During and since his time at Duke Daniel has written a fair amount concerning Paul and the significance of recent scholarship on Paul for the contemporary church. (more…)

I have been lurking in Art’s post below regarding Dr. Lillback’s essay, and caught a comment that I think is worthy of a new thread.  GLW had this to say:

I am most uncomfortable with the recent developement of what goes by the moniker ‘trajectory hermeneutics’ and even more so when that concept is applied to the arguement that Enns’ is on a trajectory that was set by Warfield- never mind that BBW during his career opposed similar concepts that were being advanced by C.A. Briggs . It is much the same with the advocates of trajectory hermeneutics-they dispense with the Biblical texts on homosexuality and the role of women in the Church-never mind what Paul actually saying- we have to interpret those texts with this trajectory in mind at all times-one word captures this-waxnose.  (The highlighting is mine.)

This is a topic of serious interest to me.  If I’m understanding GLW correctly, he’s saying that those who employ trajectory hermeneutics “dispense with the Biblical texts on  . . . the role of women in the Church.”  I think that’s worth discussing, especially in light of the upcoming PCA GA debate about the ordination of women deacons.    

It’s no secret that I am an advocate for opening all leadership positions in the church to called and equipped women.  It’s been a pleasure on those opportunities I’ve had to sit under the preaching of a close friend and classmate as she proclaims the gospel in her PCUSA church while preparing for ordination.  The parishioners of her church are blessed by her teaching, and the gospel is going forth powerfully.  But am I dispensing with the biblical texts in my support for her and others? 

I would argue not, and here are a few reasons why:

  • Judges 4-5, the Deborah narrative, refers to Deborah in 4:4 as “Deborah, a woman, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth . . . “  She speaks the words of Yahweh to Barak, and he recognizes her authority.  She is later referred to as a judge (4:4-5) and a mother in Israel (5:7).The formula of her biblical introduction is echoed in 6:8, describing the prophet to the people of Israel who delivers an indictment against them for their faithlessness which led to the Midianite oppression.
  • 2 Kings 22:14, Huldah is a prophetess, who delivered the word of Yahweh to Hilkiah the priest and four others in service to Josiah.
  • Acts 16:40 describes Lydia as householder with a church in her home, and Acts 18 portrays Priscilla as Paul’s colaborer and teacher. 
  • In Romans 16:7, Paul names Junia as “outstanding (or of note or prominent or highly respected) among the apostles.”  (NIV; NASB; KJV; Young’s Literal; NLT; NRSV).  The ESV alone takes  ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις and translates it “well known to the apostles,” something of a stretch as far as I’m concerned. 
  • I note that in 1 Cor 1:11, Paul indicates that his letter is at least partially in response to the report from “Chloe’s people.”
  • Nympha oversees a house church in Col 4:15.
  • Euodia and Syntyche were Paul’s colaborers in Philippi along with Clement, (Phil 4:2-3), and reasonably part of the leadership group referred to in Phil 1:1 – overseers and deacons.   

And so on. 

There is a wealth of texts in both the OT and NT that point to substantial leadership roles on the part of women.  There are texts that say something different, with 1 Tim 2:11-12 as the strongest among these, but there are quite reasonable exegetical approaches that tame the force of the the plain reading.  These, I might add, are not particularly tied to a trajectory hermeneutic, but rely primarily on the overall context of the book, and Paul’s concern about the power of the false teachers over young widows (1 Tim 5:11-15, and esp. v. 13).

I’d like to know what you, our readers, are thinking about on this subject, both in agreement and disagreement.  I would welcome discussion particular to the PCA debate, and of course, in general.  

TM

(more…)

I’m a little surprised others haven’t posted this yet. Please check out the following site: www.saveourseminary.com. Please take a look at that site. Whether you’re alumni, a donor, or just someone who has been touched by the seminary, please consider signing it. Please also pray for the future of the institution.

The Starfish and the Spider, a book in the spirit of The Tipping Point and Blink, introduces a relatively straightforward observation, and demonstrates its potent explanatory power in certain otherwise puzzling or commonly misdiagnosed situations.  Authors Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom are Stanford MBAs who became intrigued with the perplexing success of leaderless, decentralized organizations to not only thrive, but to redraw playing fields historically dominated by classic, top-down entities.

 

The working metaphor is the starfish, an animal with the power to not only regenerate a cut-off leg, but from a cut-off leg, an entirely new starfish.  They contrast this with the spider, which dies if its head is removed.  The point?  Peer-to-peer, flat organizations which spring up around an idea that grips people, and inspires their dedication because it’s intrinsically great, cannot be stopped.  Not only that, but if a traditional spider player in the same realm has long been dominant, its ongoing success is seriously threatened by the starfish.  One might understand all this as the arrival of postmodernism at Wall Street, but even within that broad structure, starfishes and spiders are apt metaphors for a rapidly evolving paradigm shift in organizational design

 

The book is an easily accessible collection of case studies illustrating and fleshing out the basic idea.  Brafman and Beckstrom launch their examples with the downfall of the recording industry and Tower Records by the sudden and overwhelming appearance of P2P players like Napster and later, eMule.  In five years, the entire industry was turned upside down.  They show how Wikipedia, eBay, and Skype have changed the terrain for encyclopedia publishers, retail, and phone service respectively.  They move out of the for-profit realm in describing the sweeping success of Alcoholics Anonymous and its spawns as a starfish response to the ineffectiveness of the professional mental health industry’s approaches to addictions in the 1940s.  And, perhaps most significantly for our historical moment, Brafman and Beckstrom provide a management model that explains the resiliency of starfish al-Qaeda against western spider attempts to eradicate it.

 

While there are variations on the starfish theme, including hybrid organizations which employ the best of both worlds – think eBay’s acquisition of PayPal, or IBM’s promotion of Linux – the basic starfish model has certain characteristics.  These include no one in charge; no apparent headquarters; distributed knowledge and power; inability to count participants; direct communication among working groups; and strengthening under attack.  Starfish organizations are characterized by the presence of a catalyst who champions a seminal idea with passion, and then gets out of the way as it takes off. 

 

One of the authors’ examples for this is Granville Sharp, a name previously known to me only as the preface to “Rule” in connection with the application of adjectives to conjoined nouns in Koine Greek.  It turns out that he was probably more significant as the catalyst in eighteenth century abolition circles behind more familiar names like William Wilberforce.  He is also used as the exemplar for another marker of starfish organizations:  their tendency to capitalize on a pre-existing network as a way to gain followers.  In Sharp’s case, it was the decentralized Quaker meetings. 

 

Why a long exposition on starfish for Conn-versation?  Immediately, I was struck by the way in which this model explains from a management perspective the swift spread of the first century church:  team decisions with no singular leader; no palatial headquarters; a priesthood of all believers; thousands added to their numbers daily; and distributed intra-church communications.  Paul served as the catalyst-champion of the gospel, and planted churches throughout the Roman Empire.  How did he progress?  From the existing synagogue network.  And the spider?  The Empire itself.  As persecutions grew, seemingly inexplicably, so did the church.

 

What about the Reformation?  The Roman church was the spider, with Luther and Calvin as chief catalysts, but clearly not CEOs or popes.  The churches were decentralized, grew rapidly, and from the beginning, harnessed the new printing technology of printing to spread the message of salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  In fact, it is possible to look at many major church movements and see similar starfish principles at work:  the spread of the Wesleyans and the Baptists are examples from American history. 

 

In our own time, the internet has served as an extraordinary platform accelerating communications and facilitating the formation of interest group circles with astonishing power to challenge status quo spider organizations.  Apart from the many examples highlighted by Brafman and Beckstrom, consider this summer’s grassroots “Nuts” campaign that persuaded CBS to reverse its decision to cancel the 2006-7 show “Jericho” after one, cliff-hung season.  Today more than ever before, an appealing idea with a passionate champion has the ability to move mountains. 

 

Within the believing Christian church, the starfish model explains the power of the emerging church, and other movements challenging the status quo.  Indeed, many – some broad and some narrow – are already springing from ideas which have captured the imagination of a catalyst and interest groups.  (In conservative Reformed circles, think New Perspective, Federal Vision, missionalism.)  Starfish are about conversation.  Take an idea, massage it, make it better, find new applications, promote it, tweak it, and watch what happens . . .  

 

The implications for traditionally-organized denominations are significant.  As the spiders in this model, they should recognize that the terrain has changed.  Historic assumptions about their authority, standing and power that were clear-cut a generation ago are today subject to regular challenges from starfish players.  These have what Brafman and Beckstrom call “unstoppable power,” and will not only participate in the conversation, but have the ability to define and even dominate it as their best ideas gain traction.

 

What then is a spider to do in this different world?  The authors speak of the diseconomies of scale, the network effect, and the power of chaos – all challenges to traditional thinking.  The histories of these models in conflict suggest that when knowledge is decentralized; when people want to become involved; when catalysts rule; and when the values become the organization, a head-on attack by the spider will likely be futile.  Far better to look for ways to engage and join; the hybrid models are one example.  For the church which sees starfish as opportunities instead of threats, the potential for turbo-charging the spread of the gospel is staggering.  In fact, one could even imagine a twenty-first century parable beginning “The kingdom of heaven is like a starfish . . .”

This post was originally posted at my personal blog at Sets N Service, I’m posting it here to get some feedback and see how close or how far off some of you consider my thesis to be…I’m sure it needs work and a good deal of nuance.

WARNING THIS POST WILL MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE, BUT I HOPE THE MESSAGE WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE EMERGING CHURCHES AND YOURSELF IN A MORE HUMBLE AND INTERDEPENDENT LIGHT! Please realize that there is a conscious lack of nuance in this thesis, but I’m hoping that it might cause some new questions to develop in an area few have looked into. If I’m wrong please offer me correction…

Like the New Perspective the Emerging Churches are quickly becoming a dividing line issue for many in the Church today. And like the New Perspective to be sympathetic or nuanced about your opinion on the issue is to open the door to suspicion and uneasiness, to doubt of ones own orthodoxy by others. Fears have been raised about the newest kids on the block, and as Traditional Churches watch more and more of their 20′s and 30′s exit their doors only to enter many of the Emerging Churches doors their sentiments toward them are not warming. Disdain, rumors, and heterodoxy charges are in the murmurs of the mobs…what will be the outcome of this tension? how did the Church in the West get here? Are Traditional Churches – Evangelicals, Reformed, and Presbyterian included here – ready to stomach the fact that they may have inadvertently created the Emerging Churches movements? If you’re Emerging or Emergent this notion is probably a rank stench, but I believe there is substance behind it, please keep reading. (more…)

Question’s for everyone;

Does someone need to have an orthodox confession of the Trinity in order to be saved if they’re a new professing Christian in the visible church?

How do the Hebrew Bible and New Testament talk about repentance and belief, should we extend the content or focus from their discussion to include orthodox content from the early creeds as a necessary framework for treating someone as a real Christian? Whats the difference between progressive revelation and Church tradition beyond the canon of scripture, is there a difference, and if so how should it be expressed by us?

What does orthodoxy really look like, and what is it supposed to do?

I’m asking these questions from a situation that arose that requires pastoral wisdom to navigate through it and would love clarity and counsel from you all, sisters and brothers…

 Acts 1:8 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

In this manner our Lord left the early Church, he didn’t label them beyond saying you are my disciples, and he certainly didn’t give them a building to look after – at least not one built with bricks and mortar. The earliest description applied to Christians was the phrase ‘the way’. I personally don’t have a problem with the language Christian but I think I prefer ‘the way’ because it says my life and my faith isn’t about belonging and hanging out, but its about belonging and moving forward. What does it mean to be a journey people, why did Luke chose this description and what does it tell us about the Church?

Acts continues that journeying theme of the Gospel. The risen Jesus, now speaking and acting through the Holy Spirit in the life of His pilgrim people, continues to journey. No longer to Jerusalem, but from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. Now He proclaims the gospel not simply to the Jews but “to all the nations” (Luke 24:47). The gospel itself receives a new name that indicates its traveling nature – “the way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9;, 23; 22:4; 24:22). This is Luke’s unique designation for early Christianity, journey language to describe a journey gospel.”(pgs. 99-100, A World To Win,Harvie Conn)

Has the Church in Western culture lost sight of her nature as a pilgrim people? Has she dichotomized between foreign missions and domestic evangelism, losing the missiological dimension of herself in her own local context? Do we even know how to use ‘journey language’, or have we forfeited our ability to speak prophetically into the present of people’s lives because we find ourselves trapped by our own cultural language game of symbols, signifiers, and the like that the world really won’t and can’t get? Is the gospel really a ‘journey gospel’ or is it something more tame and ruly, less wild and more of a trained set of propositions that Christians walk through with ‘the other’ in five easy steps – in a manner to pass on the ‘choke collar of church-culture’? Can we be planted, with responsibility of maintenance needs while remaining missional in our identity and praxis? I think the answers to these questions for many churches could be yes, but there are those among us who haven’t lost sight of the missiological dimension of God’s people, who haven’t religated it to a 15% line item on the budget, who have a covenantal view of family and mission together. What are your reflections on these matters…

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.