TOAM – Worship

Posted on by
3

I thought I would now write a bit about the worship at the Together on a Mission conference. I’ve even included a 12 second video clip for you to get a feel of it:

On the day I was there we had two times of worship led by South African Evan Rogers. Many songs were in an African language (Afrikaans?), and involved a lot of dancing and actions. The antics of those on dancing the platform got increasingly extravagant, culminating in them diving off the stage into the arms of the worshippers below towards the end of the evening! I wonder what Chuck Colson would say about Bambelela?

When Terry Virgo recommended a book on the cross that defends the doctrine of “penal substitution” a stifled ripple of laugher went round the room, presumably because people thought he had accidently said something rude. I noticed a lot of the new songs included lines affirming this view of the atonement, which shows an admirable intent to ensure that our songs are theologically instructive, although in places singing about the wrath of God to such upbeat music did seem somewhat incongruous.

I think that there are three key groups of newfrontiers worship songs at the moment:
1) Church Songs – there are loads of new songs being written about the church as the agent of God’s kingdom purposes. These are serving to remind us that we are a people on a mission, rather than worship focussing entirely on my personal salvation / relationship with God.
2) Modern Hymns – people such as Stuart Townend and Keith Getty are writing some good new hymns with real depth to the lyrics, which I think is a much needed addition to charismatic worship, as most of the older hymns have been long forgotten.
3) Multi-cultural songs – We are learning songs from other cultures, usually with a ‘celebration’ theme. People from all cultures dancing together in worship is a good expression of the unity in Christ.

TOAM – Calling the Nations to the Obedience of Faith

Posted on by
1

OK, here’s my next report from the Brighton Together on a Mission conference. Dave Devenish was speaker at session 7 on Thursday morning. His text was Rom 1:1-15; 15:17-24; and 16:25-27. You can read what Adrian Warnock made of this session here.

He wanted to focus on the way Paul begins and ends the letter of Romans – parts that can get missed as there is so much good stuff in the middle. The key verse he picked out is Rom 1:5 –

through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations.

The Gospel of the Kingdom

Through his apostolic ministry, Paul wanted to bring the gospel of grace to every nation – bringing people to the obedience of faith. Dave had clearly been reading some N T Wright, as he contrasted Christ’s kingdom with that of Caesar’s. Our King is claiming the whole world – but his kingdom is brought in not by brute force, but by grace and apostleship. All this is done for the glory of Christ – which according to Stott is the highest missionary motivation.

He then went on to list some enemies of this vision, which result when we preach a gospel that is not truly the gospel of the kingdom. For example, where Christ is promoted as an alternative therapy for felt needs. Or the western consumerist gospel plus a private ambition of going to heaven when I die. Other examples include churches in Africa where tribalism and sexual immorality is not renounced despite claiming to be Christian.

Where Christ is not Preached

Dave then spoke of Paul’s desire to preach where Christ was not known. Even though the areas already evangelised were by no means Christianised, Paul had left reproducing churches behind. They could be entrusted to plant more churches. Paul’s own ministry was pioneering, and others were called to fill in behind him. He wanted to reach “Greeks and barbarians” – he was not limited to those who were culturally reachable. Dave then gave some space to giving examples of unreached people groups – defined as peoples without an indiginous, witnessing (i.e. reproducing) church.

Why are we involved in this mission to the unreached?
1) Prophetic Promise
2) Apostolic Passion
3) Eschatological Necessity (Matt 24:14)
4) Contemporary Urgency

What is stopping us reaching them?
1) Non-missional churches. We need everyone involved, not just the keen few.
2) Culture-bound instead of culture-challenging churches
3) The Muslim identification of Christianity with the west. The only way this is overcome is by planting small communities of believers who demonstrate that Christianity is something different.
4) Cultural and linguistic challenges

Practical Outworking

We need to keep preaching this message of reaching the nations, and give practical help to those going – more than giving money, this includes strategic support. Pray continually and give generously. Encourage people to go and support them.

My thoughts

I thought this was an excellent message, and underscores some of what I feel is best about newfrontiers. There is a real desire to bring the gospel to the nations, and work to build cross-cultural churches in our own cities. It would be easy for a group of churches like newfrontiers to settle for just having some large churches in major UK cities that thrive simply on Christians moving in from other churches, but here a strong commitment reaching the unreached was articulated passionately.

I am glad for the emphasis on the gospel of the kingdom. It is clear that Tom Wright has been influencing many of the newfrontiers leadership team, and informing their understanding of the proclamation of Jesus as King as politically subversive.

I think it is also interesting that the word missional is being liberally used this year (I suspect in a few cases by those who aren’t quite sure what it means). Missional is a buzz-word at the moment, speaking of a church that doesn’t see the church service as the main connecting point with unbelievers, rather we meet people within their culture by expressing the gospel through the way we live. It is about living out a Christian counter-culture and not retreating from the culture around us, but bringing the gospel to it in a way that is contextual.

I personally welcome newfrontiers embracing the concept of being missional. However, I am not too sure that many churches are entirely thinking along the same lines as those who write about being “missional”. In particular, I think the “church growth model” has also been widely embraced, which is often-times at odds with a missional approach (see my posts on the principled missional church and the results driven church). Sunday services especially focus less and less on equiping Christians to live out the kingdom lifestyle and try instead to be enjoyable for unbelievers. I know there were some other seminars at the conference that included the word “missional” in their blurb, so hopefully I will get a chance to listen to them and see if there is any more clarity on exactly what is understood in newfrontiers by the word “missional”.

TOAM – Prophetic Untimeliness

Posted on by
Reply

Adrian Warnock has been ‘live blogging’ from this week’s Newfrontiers Together on a Mission conference. I only got to attend one day (yesterday), and thoroughly enjoyed myself. I hope find time to post a few reports of my own of the talks and seminars I heard. First up was Thursday mornings seminar on Prophetic Untimeliness by Philip Greenslade of CWR

Philip Greenslade is not actually from a newfrontiers church, but has become a regular guest speaker at conferences over recent years. Personality-wise, he comes across as an intellectual – a deep thinker who presents his message humbly and clearly.

Prophetic Untimeliness

In this seminar, he borrows his title from a book by Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness: A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance, which although I haven’t read, seems to have been well received by most reviewers (see Tim Challies, David Wayne, Douglas Groothuis). Guiness’ main thesis is that the church has been so desparate to be ‘relevant’ (i.e. to be seen as having a relevant message by secular society) that it has actually become irrelevant through compromise, and in fact what the world needs to hear and see (i.e. what is truly relevant) is a church faithful to the gospel.

Philip Greenslade chose Jeremiah as an example of a prophet who was ‘untimely’ – his message was what people needed to hear, rather than what they wanted to hear. The false prophets were simply echoing popular culture, speaking “peace, peace” when there is no peace – the right message but at the wrong time.

Emotional Untimeliness

He went on to argue that not just Jeremiah’s message, but his emotions were untimely:

a) He feels God’s grief over his people’s sin. The people were unfeeling and presumptuous (Jer 8:18-22), with no idea they had grieved God. God is looking for those who will join with his grief over sin (Jer 9:10,17)

b) His experience of prophetic ministry was bittersweet. He could not join in with the shallow party crowd and their hollow laughter. His joy was too fierce for an over satiated society to understand, and too intense for those suffering from terminal blandness to appreciate (Jer 15:16). He was emotionally out of sync with the prevailing mood.

c) He felt what the people didn’t – a sense of sin (Jer 17:9). He had a deep realism about the human heart, living in a society where sin had become blatant and public (Jer 17:1,2). As we get to know the heart of God, we will develop a deep humility as we discover the deceitfulness of the human heart.

d) He feels the scorn and hostility against God (Jer 20:7-9). God’s word is invasive – it claims territories in our lives that we don’t want to surrender. This is the cost of discipleship, and yet Jeremiah feels as though the overwhelming force of God has overcome his resistance and set him on fire.

We see two extremes of emotion juxtaposed in Jer 20:13,14 – extravagant praise to self-loathing – Jeremiah was learning to think more of God and less of himself. Bonhoeffer commented on “blessed are those who mourn” saying that “they see that for all the jollity on board, the ship is beginning to sink”. The early church fathers noted that the chief problem of the pagans was insensitivity – no contrition over sin.

Jesus told us that we will weep and mourn while the world rejoices (John 16:20). Our emotions will be out of sync with those around us, because the world knows nothing of our grief or our joy.

God’s Untimely Word

To illustrate the theme of prophetic untimeliness, Philip recounted three Biblical stories:

1) The story of Josiah in 2 Chron 34, rediscovering the law. Amazingly, though the law had been lost, they were working on the temple. There was much economic and even religious activity, but the word of God had been lost. Josiah learned that God must have the first word in everything.

2) The story of Josiah’s son Jehoiakim in Jer 36. Baruch wrote down all of Jeremiah’s prophecies and read them to the people. They were then heard by the king’s “think tank” and finally by the king. Jehoiakim tried to destroy the word, but discovered that God always has the last word. The Jehoiakim church is a church that cuts bits out of the word of God to tame it, and make it culturally acceptable. But is the Josiah church honouring the word? Do we simply assume that people know the “apostle’s teaching” or are we giving space to expository teaching. This is central and vital – so we need to do it, and do it well.

3) The third story is of Jesus being handed the scroll in Luke 4. He pointed out that Jesus himself chose to expound scripture, rather than telling his feelings, vision or his life story. This seemed to me to be a word of mild rebuke to charismatic churches whos sermons are less and less likely to be expository and instead focus on explaining plans and vision for the future, or testimony from recent missions etc. He quoted William Willimon, arguing that we too need to “take up the scroll” and be confronted with the “stories of God”. God’s first and final word is Jesus, and opening the scrolls speeds the momentum of God’s story and provokes a reaction. The Bible is like dynamite (Leonard Sweet), so open the scrolls, let God’s word consume you and affect your emotions.

Greenslade closed urging newfrontiers to “stay faithful to the written word of God as you follow the Spirit wherever he leads”.

My thoughts
It is interesting that Philip was invited to speak on this topic to newfrontiers as the emotion of “mourning” over sin and acknowledging of the depravity of the human heart is not a major emphasis of our group of churches. The worship is increasingly focussing on being extravagantly joyful, and only quietens down to be intimate. Songs of lament, crying for mercy are not to be found in our repertoire. Similarly, sermons strike a consistently truimphant tone, and the Puritan emphasis on the soul’s war against sin is rejected in favour of emphasising the power of the Spirit.

As I have already mentioned, while not overtly critisising newfrontiers, Greenslade seems to be concerned that though a church may believe that it is honouring the Scriptures, in fact they are being neglected, as less and less space is given to “opening the scrolls”. Ian Stackhouse sounds a similar warning in his book “The Gospel Driven Church”. I tend to agree with them on this point – I am concerned at a growing biblical illiteracy as young
people grow up hearing many motivational talks but few biblical expositions. Any reminder of the importance of letting God speak to us through the Scriptures is in my view a timely
one.

Ironically, Greenslade may himself be “prophetically untimely”, as a call to lament and a call to expository preaching are not exactly top of the agenda at the moment in renewal / restorationist circles. Topics such as church planting, increase in signs and wonders, church growth, and leadership are perhaps more in vogue. Greenslade asked “was Jeremiah a melancholic?”, and concluded that perhaps he was, but he still had a message from God that needed to be heard. Is Greenslade himself a melancholic? Perhaps, but again, does he also have a message that we need to hear in these days?

The Principled Missional Church

Posted on by
1

Mark Driscoll is something of a controversial figure at the moment. On the one hand, he is loosely associated with the Emergent/Emerging movement and has upset a number of bloggers with his somewhat vulgar style (see what Challies, Jollyblogger, the Blue Fish, and Cawleyblog thought of his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev). On the other hand, he’s been invited by John Piper to speak at the “Above All Earthly Powers” conference alongside such speakers as Don Carson and David Wells. In other words, he’s not someone who can be easily pigeon-holed.

I hadn’t had a chance to read or hear anything from him until recently, when Desiring God put a few video interviews with him online. I was particularly interested in what he had to say in the “Seeker vs Missional” and “Biblical Principles and Cultural Methods”, as it ties in very closely with what I was trying to say yesterday on the Results Driven Church. There’s another installment of Seeker vs Missional up now that I’ve yet to listen to.

Anyway, I thought they were good enough to warrant transcribing (apologies for any mistakes, emphasis mine etc) …

Seeker vs Missional (Part 1) (Watch Video)

I think part of it is [that] the seeker sensitive church begins with the assumption that the church is a business that produces goods and services to a market. Therefore the demands of the market in large part determine the message and ministries and mission of the church. A missional church doesn’t start with the assumption that the church is a dispenser of goods and services but it is God’s kingdom representative on earth; it’s a counter-cultural entity, so it’s not just cultural relevance, it’s counter-cultural in nature and it begins with theological assumptions and then it’s asking, “how do we translate those theological assumptions effectively to a culture?” but the seeker movement is more asking “how do we win more market share or gain a larger following” which then can change your theological convictions, can change some of your leadership type of decisions. You say, “well, the majority of people who aren’t Christians don’t like to be preached at [so] let’s not do preaching, let’s do sharing. The majority of people that aren’t Christians think that women should be pastors, therefore let’s have women pastors.” It’s beginning with a business mindset of meeting a constituency as opposed to a theological mindset of working from a biblical series of convictions and just trying to articulate that in the most effective way possible. So it’s a distinction – do you lead with your theology or do you lead with your pragmatism? That’s the difference I see.

Biblical Principles and Cultural Methods (Watch Video)

In the Bible I see for the church, I see lots of principles. The church needs to have male elders, the church is to gather regularly, the church is to be involved in caring for the needs of widows and orphans, and about preaching the gospel, about planting of new churches, about teaching sound doctrine, about worshipping of God together corporately, partaking the sacraments, those kinds of things. There are principles in Scripture, and then we have methods that we use to implement those principles.

What I see is when you put everything in the open hand – both your principles and your methods – you’re a classic liberal. If you put everything in your closed hand – your principles and methods are both unchanging – you’re a classic fundamentalist. And these tend to be the two teams. “Our theology is open and our practice is open” or “Our theology is closed and our practice is closed”. What I would argue for is a two-handed approach. There are principles in the closed hand [that] we don’t negotiate [and] we don’t change, but our methods are flexible, culturally contextualised, open to change.

Some would call that cultural capitulation but they’ve already done it. They’re speaking English, not Greek and Hebrew. They’re singing, but they’re not singing the Hebrew Psalms. They are working out of an English translation of the Bible, they’re wearing American clothing and they’re driving a modern day vehicle, speaking over a contemporary sound system and recording onto modern technology. So the question is, does anyone have the right to actually say that cultural contextualisation is a bad thing? I think no. There is faithful and unfaithful cultural contextualisation but as long as we keep our Biblical principles, then that gives us a lot of freedom for our cultural methods. So what is our music look like? That can vary. What is our style of our printed material, of our architecture, of our pastoral dress, of our service order, all of those things are flexible. The New Testament actually gives no criteria for what those things should be. So I think there is a lot of freedom, if you have sound doctrine in the closed hand, and the Biblical principles are well established.

My fear is today, lots of people are only using the open hand, and their doctrine, their biblical principles and their methods are totally flexible. That’s very dangerous. But its likewise dangerous to have dead orthodoxy, where you have a Bible-believing solid Jesus loving church that nobody can relate to because you don’t speak the language, you don’t articulate the heart-cry of the culture. Your architecture, your printed materials, your vocabulary is so insular that you’re not doing what Paul says in 1 Cor 9, that by all means I communicate the gospel to as many as possible in an effort to bring them to the love of Jesus, so Paul says “I become all things to all men” – to Greeks I work this way, to Jews I work this way, therefore faithful not just to the theology of Paul but to the example of Paul we’re going to be pretty flexible and have a lot of diversity in methodology.

The Results Driven Church

Posted on by
9

I have though been slowly working through Ian Stackhouse’s “Gospel Driven Church”, which has been quite thought provoking (a review will follow in due course). In this rather long and rambling post I want to take up one of his ideas, which is that in the desire for (numerical) “growth”, new churches (i.e Restorationist / Renewal churches) have adopted a pragmatism which has resulted in the compromise of previously held principles. In other words success is measured by numbers rather than faithfulness to the gospel – a results driven mentality. This is possibly an overly harsh diagnosis, but I feel that he has at least discerned a trend that must not be allowed to develop unchecked.

Defeatism
One of the attitudes that the new churches have been glad see the back of is defeatism. In some evangelical churches, success is almost measured by how small your congregation is. If people are leaving, it consitutes proof that you are being faithful to the gospel. These churches have a “remnant” mentality, like saying with Elijah “I am the only one left” (1 Kings 19:14)

Idealism
This defeatism was replaced with idealism. The new churches saw themselves as “new wineskins” (Mark 2:22), able to throw off legalism and dry rituals and replace it with a vibrant kingdom model of church, with genuine fellowship, dynamic worship, spiritual authority, prophetic direction, apostolic oversight, powerful teaching, impacting the community with the gospel. The expectation was for imminent revival, and the return to a “New Testament model” would be key to success.

Pragmatism
But 20 years down the line, and the wide-spread revival hoped for has not materialised. What’s more, many were left bitter and disillusioned following failures and even abuses in these new churches. Ian Stackhouse suggests that to compensate for the shortcomings, pragmatism became the new modus operandi. What is working elsewhere? Alpha, Cell Church, Seeker Sensitive, Purpose Driven, Spiritual Mapping etc – whatever the mega-churches were doing ought to be copied as it is obviously working (or more commonly put “God is blessing it”). The end result is churches that have diluted their original idealism and settled for being a successful franchise of a mega-church.

Realism
But if pragmatism is not the answer, what is? Surely we don’t want to retreat back to a defeatist mentality? But neither can we return to the naïve optimism of those early days. Ian Stackhouse has his own proposals, which I will discuss when I review his book, but I want to make a humble suggestion of my own. We can return to idealism so long as it tempered with realism. In other words, getting back to the original vision of a glorious church, but honestly acknowledging that we’re not there yet, and that we’ve got lessons to learn from the church of ages past. After all, even the “old wineskin” denominations were once the latest thing themselves.

A Case Study
There are lots of ways this could be expanded on, but I’ll briefly mention the “Ephesians 4 ministries” by way of example, as it was a key part of the original Restorationist vision. It is possible for a church that has succumbed to pragmatism to pay lip-service to these ministries without actually fully embracing them. I was interested to note that Dan also has the Eph 4 ministries on his mind at the moment, as he draws attention to Terry Virgo’s excellent comments on apostles and integrity of doctrine.

Apostles – The pragmatic church gets all the training pamphlets and DVDs it needs from the model mega-church, and fulfils its part in global mission by sending some spare money to parachurch organisations. Apostles are therefore redundant, and simply function as conference speakers.

Prophets – The pragmatic church sidelines the prophetic from meetings as its not “seeker sensitive”. They don’t need direction as their manuals tell them all they need to know about how to step up to the next level of growth.

Teachers – The pragmatic church makes sure it doesn’t scare new people away with Biblical exposition. A humorous short talk or a slick multimedia presentation is the order of the day. The church may claim to be “Bible-believing”, but it will have an increasingly “Bible-illiterate” membership.

Pastors – The pragmatic church does merely what is necessary to keep people attending and tithing. The emphasis is on keeping people happy rather than helping them to grow in holiness. The pastor’s job is to maintain the membership database rather than to run the discipleship program.

Evangelists – Despite the emphasis on growth, the pragmatic church would rather find a method that can be easily scaled than looking to find those who will create fresh ways of confronting the lost with the gospel. Who needs evangelists when you can show DVDs of Nicky Gumbel?

The Way Forward
So has the original idealistic vision been swallowed up into a purely pragmatic outlook? I don’t think so, at least not in the circles I am in. However, we should beware as the transition can be gradual. Church planting is perhaps going to be key to making sure we avoid this trap. With every new church, there is a fresh return to the original vision, an idealism mixed with faith, and people who are willing to make personal sacrifices to see the kingdom advance. Existing churches will also be reminded that they don’t just exist for their own benefit as they release people to be part of a wider global mission, and new people are raised up to serve in their place. This will result in growth that is not just numerical, but spiritual, or as Ian Stackhouse puts it, growth that is intrinsic to the gospel, not extrinsic.

Anyway, that’s enough for today… I’ve got loads of thoughts running round my head on this topic at the moment, so perhaps some more posts will follow later this week.

Some Links

Posted on by
3

It’s been a while long since I posted anything here on my blog, mainly due to the World Cup and a generally hectic schedule. Expect some reflections on church very soon, but for now, here’s some things around the web that have caught my attention this month.

– Eerdmans’ have new forthcoming releases catalogue. This includes a number of new commentaries. For me, the most anticipated is the new Pillar Commentary on 2 Peter and Jude by Peter Davids.

– Mark Roberts has been blogging on what could be the “end of the Presbyterian Church USA”. As usual his posts are thorough, Biblically informed and well thought out.

– There have been a few helpful parenting posts recently. Rob Wilkerson writes about blame-shifting. Tim Challies is one of a number to recommend a new booklet on Family Worship. Also Justin Taylor recommends a catechism for kids.

– Castle Sands is a new blog to me, but one that I have been enjoying as it comes from a fellow reformed charismatic from Newfrontiers. He has a great post on faith, arguing that “faith is not about achieving certain outcomes, but a trusting in the character and promises of God”.

– I stayed out of the last debate on tithing, but Justin Taylor summarises some articles by Andreas Kostenberger and David Croteau. (Part 1, Part 2). I think there can be some muddled thinking about tithing, which churches can teach in a legalistic manner, even when their approach to the similar issue of Sabbath observance takes the exact opposite approach. What we need is to teach the principles of giving, that should result in people gladly giving more than a tenth, rather than begrudgingly doing their duty.

– Sovereign Grace continue to churn out some great new music with real depth to the lyrics. The latest project, “Valley of Vision” draws on prayers from the Puritans.

– The “Emergent/Emerging” church has generated a lot of controversy, and though I have some sympathies with their ideas, I think Rob Wilkerson’s insightful discussion of emergent humility highlights an important reason why I don’t feel able to identify with the movement as a whole.

– Dave Bish has already read his copy of Sam Storm’s new book Convergence and liked it.

– The Americans just don’t get the beautiful game… I set Justin Taylor right in the comments though.

– Final news. In the latest newfrontiers magazine we are promised that the papers from the newfrontiers theological forum are going to be made available online. I can’t wait! I wonder if Dan’s lament that there were only 12 people on the comittee has anything to do with this. (check out the comments there for James Farrer’s response – someone who seems to be in the know)

Book Review – The Message of Psalms 73-150 (Michael Wilcock)

Posted on by
1

I read the first volume of this commentary on the Psalms a couple of years ago. Many of the comments made about that volume apply to this one also. Michael Wilcock is very interested in historical background, the structure of the Psalm and also its placing within the Psalter. He also is a keen appreciator of older hymns and liturgical forms of worship, and will often discuss various hymns based on that passage. All this information can be fascinating, but it seems a little out of place in a series like Bible Speaks Today, which is focussed on the application of Scripture. The end result is that there is rarely space for key individual verses to be discussed, and those who do not make extensive use of liturgy or hymns will also find some of the material a bit alien.

Having made those criticisms, it is worth pointing out that there is still some very valuable material in this book, particularly for those planning a Bible study on a Psalm, and wanting to get a feel for its structure and setting (both historical and its place within the Psalter as a whole). He encourages a Christian application of the Psalms, seeing relevance for the church as the people of God in references to Israel. He quotes Bruggemman in a number of places, and talks of the “nonspecific” troubles of the Psalmist being able to speak into our situations.

He understands book 4 of the Psalms to be an “exodus collection”, and the Psalms of ascent are explained in the light of having a background in the Nehemiah story. He takes some time to discuss a Christian approach to the ‘imprecatory’ Psalms. There is a long section dealing with Psalm 119, and his exposition of Psalm 139 was one of the best in the book – he describes it as a theology of omniscience and omnipresence made simple and personal.

Overall, I would say its not the most thrilling of books to read cover to cover, but it still has something to offer. Each Psalm has on average two or three pages of comments, and would be helpful reading as background material to stimulate ideas for preparing a talk or study. It is common for Christians to quote parts of Psalms without having any real feel for their historical setting, or structure as a whole, so at least this book provides some useful corrective to that. It also encourages those preparing worship based on a Psalm to consider appropriate related Bible readings they could make use of.

Augustinian Monks hit a Home Run

Posted on by
2

It’s been a while since I last posted anything on the “New Perspective on Paul”, but I found this article by Steven Westerholm to be very helpful. It’s entitled “Justification by Faith is the Answer: What is the Question?”

Rather than get embroiled in debate on the meaning of “works of the law” (which I seem to remember he’s written on elsewhere) he takes a different approach. He starts with non-Pauline (or possibly Pauline) books, then chronologically works through the Paul’s epistles. He demonstrates that Paul had a thoroughgoing concern with how an individual can be made right before God. Thus by the time he gets to Galatians, Paul can answer the question “how are Gentiles included in the people of God” (the classic NPP question), with the answer he does, precisely because it is first the answer to a more fundamental question.

I found it a very helpful way of looking at the problem, and it goes in some way to finding a mediating position, as it doesn’t deny that Paul is addressing in Galatians the question that the New Perspective advocates are claiming for him.

For reference, here’s some of my earlier posts on the New Perspective:
Carson on the New Perspective
Moo on the New Perspective
Stott on the New Perspective
Book Review – The New Perspective on Paul (Michael Thompson)

Book Review – REBC Hebrews (R T France)

Posted on by
4

The first volume in the Revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary series was recently published, containing commenataries on Hebrews (R T France), James (George Guthrie), 1,2 Peter & Jude (Daryl Charles), 1,2,3 John (Tom Thatcher), and Revelation (Alan Johnson). This is just a review of the Hebrews commentary. The book itself has been well put together, with a very easy to follow layout. It includes the full text of the NIV, although France seems to wish that he was commenting on the TNIV, and regularly prefers the TNIV wording. He is non-commital on authorship – but he does say that it was someone like Apollos, writing a word of exhortation as a pastor, with a probable pre-AD 70 date. He is writing to Jewish Christians tempted to question whether they have made the right decision in converting to Christianity, and his main structure is based around the idea of supercession – how much better the Christian gospel is than the temporary provisions of the Old Covenant.

Hebrews makes much use of Old Tesament quotations, and France gives some space to discussing the sometimes unconventional hermeneutics of the author. Basically, in the Old Testament what is true of the Father is assumed to be true of the Son. In fact, in many instances, the author’s exegetical methods are remarkably similar to our own.

For Calvinists, the warning passages in Hebrews present a possible contradiction to other text emphasising the security of the believer. France does discuss this issue, but doesn’t attempt to provide a resolution other than noting the differing pastoral intentions that are present in Hebrews (Paul wants to give assurance to doubters, Hebrews wants to give warning to the complacent). Moreover, France believes that the author of Hebrews really does indicate that ‘real’ Christians can deliberately abandon the faith. The use of “we” in 10:26 indicates to him that again “real Christians” are in view. While not interacting directly with a Calvinist approach to 3:14, he sees this as a verse stating that our “sharing remains conditional” – the race is not run until it has been finished. France sees apostacy also in the mention of Esau in 12:16.

There are helpful explanations of what Christian maturity is about, and how Jesus became perfect through suffering (5:8,9). While he does not wade right in to controversial debates on the atonement, he does emphasise understanding the cross in terms of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Commenting on 10:14 he says that it is pastorally essential to recognise the believer’s ongoing battle with sin. His introductory material to chapter 11 is helpful in explaining the nature of faith, and how the author sees faith in some Old Testament stories that do no explicitly mention it. France sees chapter 13 as naturally concluding the letter and so doesn’t see the need to consider it a later addition.

Overall, I found this commentary very helpful in following the argument through the book, and explaining some of the more difficult parts. It is not a long-winded commentary, which may mean that in places you would like a more detailed explanation. Although he touches on some theological debates and practical applications, on the whole he is happy to do the exegesis, and leave the systematic theology and contemporary application to the reader, which is probably about right for a commentary series aimed at preachers. The volume as a whole represents good value for money compared to most other commentary series available, providing commetaries on nine books for the price of one hardback book.

Parachurch Organisations

Posted on by
32

The latest edition of the newfrontiers magazine came out recently, and it touches on what could prove a very controversial subject. Basically it sets out to criticise the existance of parachurch organisations, arguing that they fulfill ministries better provided by local churches. I’ve collected together a few of my disorganised thoughts on this subject below. I’ll start with what I thought was good, and then offer a few criticisms…

Points of agreement

Training in the context of the local church

Why is it that when someone wants the practical and theological training for (usually full-time) ministry do they find that their local church has almost nothing to offer? So they are sent off to Bible college, which may be a good environment for academic learning, but is likely to lack the “on-the-job” training aspect that a local church can offer. For example, spending time working with and caring for the elderly would be better than writing a 10,000 word essay on “The Issues and Challenges that the Over-Sixties Present To Churches in a Post-Modern Context”.

Overseas minded people handed over to other organisations

Why is it that when someone declares that they have a heart to preach the gospel and demonstrate practical Christian love overseas, do we give them the phone number of a missionary society? It makes for an all to convinient detachment for the local church. We send some money, they send prayer letters which make us have a warm feeling that we are “doing our bit” for world evangelisation.

There are exceptions acknowledged…

The magazine does seem to be awareness of at least one criticism. What about specialist organisations? Mission Aviation Fellowship and Wycliffe Bible Translators are listed as examples. It is unlikely that an individual local church would have the expertise and specialised resources to provide the services that these organisations do.

Problems

…but not enough exceptions?

But could that not be said to a lesser extent for almost all parachurch organisations? For example, a local church may well be able to provide many of the services that an organization like UCCF do. Getting involved in a church cell may indeed be preferable to simply fellowshipping with students. But though a Christian Union can and should never replace a church, does that mean it is not necessary? CU’s do a work of discipling and evangelising students on a scale that even the most well resourced local churches are not likely to be able to match.

Is the divide that great?

And how true is it that parachurch organisations are doing the work that local churches should? Many missionary societies, bible colleges, student movements etc are making great efforts to ensure that they work in partnership with local churches, offering themselves to provide specialised training, and ensuring that those in their organisation are fully active in local church life.

The church universal

Are we guilty of creating too great a distinction between the church local and the church universal? If people from a load of different churches get together and work together, does that make it any less “the church”? After all, newfrontiers very own “New Day” event will gather thousands of young people from different churches, and pool the resources for an evangelistic effort. It is hard to see how this is substantially different to UCCF mobilising students from many churches for a combined mission.

How are parachurch organisations formed?

Doubtless there are different ways that these organisations come about, but I suspect that many are borne out of a local church ministry that grew big. Whether this be a local evangelist who goes itinerant, or a small ministry to the poor that acquired property and a charitable status, or even a training program that started attracting attendees from further afield. If newfrontiers continues to grow, who is to say that in 20 years time there won’t be more parachurch organisations springing up from those within the local church who have a passion for a unique ministry and joining people in other local churches who have the same burden.

Are we ready to take over?

Finally, what would happen if the directors of Bible colleges and missionary societies read this magazine and decided to close down their organisations? Would missionaries be served and supported as well solely by the members of their sending church? Would those wanting training find anything that really equips them for ministry? At the moment, I doubt it.

Church plants

Newfrontiers is big on church planting, something I wholeheartedly am behind. But this means many churches with small memberships. There is no way that they can sustain a fully comprehensive set of ministries. This means that inevitably, they will need to look to other churches or parachurch organisations for help in some areas. Newfrontiers already do much Bible, worship, and children’s work training at certain large well-resourced churches.

Conclusion

I agree that the existence of so many parachurch organisations is indicative of at least some failure on the part of the local church to support the diversity of ministries needed by its membership. We need to step up to the challenge of meeting these needs ourselves, and being humble enough to learn from the expertise of these parachurch organisations. Personally, I think that we will never be without the need for groups of Christians working together with common goals across local church boundaries, and because of this, there will always be organisations that in some sense will be “parachurch”.

Anyway, I’ve rambled enough now. I would be interested to know what others think on this issue. Would we be better off without parachurch organisations?