Tag: church

Tim Keller on Underadapting to Culture

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Tim Keller is one of leading voices in church planting today. He has thought long and hard about how to do gospel ministry in today’s urban contexts, and is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, a thriving ministry in the heart of New York City. Redeemer has helped mentor other church planters in New York and beyond through Redeemer City to City, a ministry which has helped launch over 200 churches in 35 global cities so far.

Keller’s latest book is Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Zondervan, 2012) which is a manual for how to think about doing church. His aim is to explain how “theological vision,” as distinct from doctrine or methodology, should drive how we bring the message of the gospel to the communities we are called to serve. Just from reading through the introductory chapter, I know I am going to want to read through this manual in depth—highlighter in hand. Keller uses diagrams and sidebars, and yes, even some footnotes, to present his information in an understandable format. And what he has to say is definitely worth hearing. He talks about the inevitability of contextualizing and chides preachers who don’t intentionally think through how their church must speak to the culture around them.

This post is not going to be a full review. I’ll save that for after I’ve had time to examine this work at length. Instead I want to focus in on an excerpt from the introduction on how the Church should adapt to culture. As a former independent fundamental Baptist (IFB), I read these words with great interest:

We will show [in this book] that to reach people we must appreciate and adapt to their culture, but we must also challenge and confront it. This is based on the biblical teaching that all cultures have God’s grace and natural revelation in them, yet they are also in rebellious idolatry. If we overadapt to a culture, we have accepted the culture’s idols. If, however, we underadapt to a culture, we may have turned our own culture into an idol, an absolute. If we underadapt to a culture, no one will be changed because no one will listen to us; we will be confusing, offensive, or simply unpersuasive. To the degree a ministry is overadapted or underadapted to a culture, it loses life-changing power. (pg. 24, emphasis added)

I think there is a wealth of wisdom in this brief except. I particularly appreciated the section that I bolded. This seems to be the case with most conservative IFB churches I know. By and large, the wider culture looks at them with bewilderment. Their version of Christianity—complete with Stoic worship, an archaic Bible and outdated fashion—is totally foreign to the average citizen in the community. And the churchly phrases and Christian lingo confuse the message even more.

In a later section in the book, Keller talks of Anglo Christians who are “often culturally clueless”:

They don’t see any part of how they express or live the gospel to be “Anglo”—it is just the way things are. They feel that any change in how they preach, worship, or minister is somehow a compromise of the gospel. In this they may be doing what Jesus warns against—elevating the “traditions of men” to the same level as biblical truth (Mark 7:8). This happens when one’s cultural approach to time or emotional expressiveness or way to communicate becomes enshrined as the Christian way to act and live. (pg. 96)

Keller goes on to discuss how our culture shapes our view of individualism and community. He also decries how church planters or missionaries tend to reproduce the cultural methodology of ministries that have impacted them.

If they have been moved by a ministry that has forty-five-minute verse-by-verse expository sermons, a particular kind of singing, or a specific order and length to the services, they reproduce it down to the smallest detail. Without realizing it, they become method driven and program driven rather than theologically driven. They are contextualizing their ministry expression to themselves, not to the people they want to reach. (pg. 97, emphasis added)

Keller’s point should not be ignored. While we must not overadapt to culture and compromise the gospel, we nevertheless have a responsibility to analyze the culture we find ourselves in and seek to communicate in such a way, that the offense that arises in response to our teaching, is an offense directed at the gospel itself, and not our own idiosyncrasies and cultural traditions.

I recommend that pastors and church leaders everywhere pick up a copy of this important book from Tim Keller. The book is carefully written and the principles are clearly explained. Even if you disagree with some of what he has to say, his book will provide an opportunity to systematically walk through all of the issues related to doing ministry in a given culture. If we recognize that some sort of “theological vision” exists and undergirds what we do, then focusing on what that vision is and how it is developed will have lasting impact in how we do church in the twenty-first century.

You can learn more about Center Church at Zondervan’s Engaging Church Blog this week or from CenterChurch.com. You can see a book excerpt or watch a video trailer at Westminster Bookstore’s product page. Pick up a copy of the book at any of the following retailers: Monergism Books, Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble, or direct from Zondervan.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Zondervan. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Powerless Preaching

~ Bob Hayton

This series of posts focuses on several pitfalls that especially plague Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches. These pitfalls are wide enough to catch people of a variety of stripes, but fundamentalist Christians tend to be especially prone to these errors. Having disentangled myself from some of these very errors, I aim to lovingly warn people of the dangers associated with this way of thinking.

In previous posts we looked at legalism and performance-based sanctification. Today we will look at powerless preaching.

This point may be the most ironic of all. If there is any group of churches which pride themselves on old-fashioned, hell-fire and brimstone preaching, it is independent fundamental Baptists. The patron saint of preaching, Billy Sunday, was unfortunately an ordained Presbyterian. But Baptists love him nonetheless. It is Billy Sunday’s dramatic style that so many fundamentalist preachers seek to emulate. Something about jumping up on top of the pulpit, swinging from the rafters and yelling at the top of one’s lungs appeals to a good many people, I guess.

But for all the bluster and all the bravado, the preaching in many fundamentalist pulpits is quite shallow and powerless. Now this kind of preaching can sure keep the church members in line. It can make people squirmish and even have them stocking up on antacid. But does it really facilitate a meaningful change in their life?

It should go without saying that pretty much anyone can get up there and scream at people. Jack Schaap was as big a preacher as they come. He thundered from the pulpit of the largest IFB church in the land, and boy did he sound good. But screaming about the liberals and the cowardly in the congregation does not amount to godliness, and neither does it facilitate growth.

Often this powerless preaching takes the form of a “toe-stomping” sermon—a hard-hitting, guilt-heaping sermon. One of my more colorfully titled posts, and a favorite from my early years of blogging was “Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching.” That post and the exchange in the comments section is worth reading as you think through the matter of powerless preaching. But in an effort to be crystal clear in my critique here, I want to excerpt most of another post on preaching, where I gave a case study which helps explain the problem in a more direct fashion.

Thesis

Here is my primary point: preaching that majors on heaping guilt on the hearers in an attempt to motivate them to do better is not “powerful.” It is possibly moralistic, and it is likely carnal. This preaching does more harm than good. Unfortunately it is quite common in fundamentalism, although it can be found in many other circles as well.

Case Study

Here is the passage for our case study: Mark 15:32-42. We will focus on Jesus’ admonition in vs. 38: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak.” You know the story, Jesus’ disciples had fallen asleep when they should have been praying. Jesus admonishes them to watch and pray. And yet when he returns from another prayer session, he finds the disciples asleep again.

Now let me develop 2 approaches to this passage, which might easily be found in a Sunday morning message. In comparing and contrasting these approaches, I hope my point about moralistic sermons will come home.

A Moralistic Approach

This message would major on the commands “watch and pray”. It would highlight the results of either obeying or disobeying the commands. It would imply that most or all of the listeners have failed miserably in this respect. Based on “the flesh is weak”, the message would set up the listeners to expect to have to struggle in this area. The message would end by calling the listeners to do better and pray more. People might be encouraged to come forward and make decisions to rededicate themselves to fervent prayer, or to confess their failures to pray and vow to change.

This kind of message might be labelled “toe-stomping” or “hard hitting”, as the preacher might very well drive his point home forcefully through screaming, theatrical antics, or tear-jerking illustrations. The listeners would leave the message acutely aware of their guilt and mindful of the preacher’s challenge that they watch and pray much better than they have before.

A Christ-Centered Approach

This message would again stress the commands “watch and pray”. Yet it would also give the fuller context of the passage. The disciples did not watch and pray, whereas Jesus did. Jesus would be shown to be absolutely faithful, whereas even heroes of the Christian faith, the disciples, are seen to be very weak and unfaithful. The message would stress that it is important to watch and pray, as a failure to do so leads to temptation, even as illustrated by the desertion of Christ by these very disciples. Yet the message would stress Christ’s kindhearted response to this lack of faithfulness on the disciples’ part. Rather than harshly rebuking them the second time He found them sleeping, he acknowledged their weakness. He had said the “flesh is weak”.

The message would go on to stress that our very weakness, what makes it so difficult to watch and pray, is that for which Christ died. Jesus knows we are weak, and so Jesus prays for us, even when we don’t. The ultimate victory over temptation is won because Jesus overcame the world, not because we have the innate ability to. We can win, when we depend on Christ and the victory He purchased. The message would end with a call to depend on Christ more in the area of prayer. It would encourage people to trust Jesus and His faithfulness, even as it would call on the hearers to excercise more faith in watching and praying more faithfully.

The message might not be very “hard hitting”, but it would be encouraging and uplifting. The preacher may well get excited as he proclaims Christ’s faithfulness and work on our behalf, but he would be unlikely to scream at or belittle the hearers for their lack of faithfulness in prayer. The listeners would leave the message in a thankful and worshipful state of mind, as they ponder how wonderful is Christ’s faithfulness and work on their behalf, weak and sinful though they be. They would determine to love Christ more and desire to be more faithful in their prayer lives.

I hope this case study proves helpful. I hope that preachers will aim to proclaim the glories and faithfulness of Christ more consistently. We need to realize that in every step of our Christian life we need to trust Jesus more fully. He can help us obey, and it is because of Him that we can. Believers need to be reminded of these truths. They need to be pointed to Christ and encouraged to trust in Him more. They don’t need to have guilt heaped upon them without an offer of hope. There is no hope if I have to depend on my own determination to do better. There is plenty of hope, inexhaustible hope, if I am encouraged to lean on the work Jesus has done for me.

Jack Schaap’s Fall & the Future of the IFB Movement: Act 2

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Just seven weeks ago the news broke about Jack Schaap’s fall. The pastor of the largest independent fundamental Baptist Church in the world had been fired under suspicions of sex abuse of a minor. Well today it was announced that he reached a plea agreement with the authorities and has admitted that he “he took a minor over state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity” (source Northwest Indiana Times). The Chicago Tribune adds that “Schaap admits that he had sex with the girl, the girl was under his care or supervision, and he used a computer to persuade the girl to have sex with him illegally.”

Following on the heels of that news, Ed Stetzer, an author and leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, posted another article on the future of the independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement (see his first article, expressing outrage over IFB leaders refusing to call this “sexual abuse”). In his piece he applauds Dr. Paul Chappell (pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church, home of West Coast Baptist College), for his response to the original news of Schaap’s fall. Far too many IFB leaders, in Stetzer’s opinion, were excusing Schaap and refusing to stand up for the reported victim of his sexual abuse.

Stetzer’s piece is worth reading, as is Chappell’s article. I hope that this high profile event does help the IFB movement to rethink its future. Instead of circling the wagons, I hope they rethink their philosophy and ask the hard questions. Something Chappell seems ready to do. And there are signs that other leaders in the IFB movement are also changing in positive ways.

Regardless, IFB leaders need to come to grips with the fact that their movement, whether fairly or not, has become identified with sexual abuse by predatory pastors in a very public way – and this is how the general public may think of the IFB movement going forward. The time for change is now. Now is the time to correct course, admit mistakes, stand up for victims, and take clear steps toward addressing even the hint of improprieties in this regard.

I encourage you to read Stetzer’s piece and join the movement for real reform in the IFB.

Don’t misunderstand me. Please know that there are very many good IFB churches, there are countless scores of faithful believers and sincere pastors. Ditching the movement, and maligning everyone in it is wrong. But so is acting like the problems of other IFB churches don’t say something is wrong with the wider IFB movement. It doesn’t matter where you think you are in the IFB movement, you must realize and admit this error and take pains to expunge it. Falling back on your “independency” will only allow the problem to grow and may blind you to some deep problems that aid and abet the spread of insular thinking and a mindset which facilitates abuse of all kinds.

Matt Olson and “What Matters Most” with Separation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Matt Olson, the president of Northland Baptist Bible College (now called Northland International University), has been writing a blog recently and saying some really important, and risky things. He’s taking a stand against institutional legalsim and is making his constituents a little uneasy.

Recently he started a multi-part series on “What Matters Most.” He is thinking through separation in light of how the fundamentals of the faith are what truly matter most. I have made a similar point in a post entitled: “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.” Olson also is open about the positive influence on his thinking from Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage” illustration, which is quite helpful in my view as well.

Here is how Olson distills the three levels of his view on separation:

The first/top tier is orthodoxy. What doctrines are necessary for a person to truly be “Christian?” Sometimes we have referred to these as “the fundamentals of the faith.” While five of these were distinguished in the early part of the last century, I do think there are more. These would be beliefs that are necessary to have a true gospel, an orthodox faith, and an authentic Christianity. I believe it is very clear that Paul draws a hard line here with orthodoxy when we read Galatians. If we don’t get this right, we don’t get anything right.

The second tier is one of functional distinctives. These teachings are necessary for a local church to function effectively—such as mode of baptism and church polity. We may have great fellowship with a Presbyterian and even have him preach for us in our church, but we probably won’t be members of the same church. We differ because we interpret certain texts differently. I see this as a “dotted line.” We can both be Christians who love the Lord and seek to please Him in all we do and we can enjoy times together in and out of the contexts of our local churches.

The third tier is personal convictions. These are matters of conscience or preference. These are important, but believers should be able to differ and still enjoy fellowship within the context of the same local church. Love and respect will “give people space.” It is a Romans 14 spirit within the body and does not prohibit a healthy functioning of the local assembly of believers. In fact, the differences can be a strengthening characteristic. [from part 1 of his series]

Olson seems to differ from the fundamentalist party line in his last post in this series, where he makes the following observations:

I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship. I believe that every true born again Christian is a brother or sister in Christ and that not only can I have fellowship with him or her, it is what Christ has intended, and it is what brings him great delight (Romans 1:1; Philippians 2:1-11). For me to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ, and hinders the work of the Great Commission.

The mode of baptism, timing of the rapture, cessationist or non-cessationist positions, dispensational or covenant positions, church polity, style of music, philosophy of ministry—are NOT fundamentals of the faith. They never have been. When we get to heaven I think there are going to be a lot of people feeling ashamed about how they fought over these things and neglected what matters most.

Every local church or ministry will have its functional distinctives, and we need these. Every believer will have his own personal convictions, beliefs, and opinions. We need these as well. They are not unimportant and they may even affect the degree of practical cooperation in certain ministry contexts. But, these are not matters of separation and those who don’t agree with someone else’s opinions are not simply disobedient brothers.

A disobedient brother is someone who is in clear violation of biblical teaching and one who after repeated confrontation continues in his sin. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on how to work through these situations in love and toward restoration (Galatians 6:1-5). [from part 3]

I wholeheartedly affirm what he is saying above, and can agree with the gist of his conclusion:

What do we separate over?

  1. The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
  2. The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13).
  3. The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).

[from part 3]

While I applaud Olson’s conclusions on this matter, I’m curious as to what degree this will impact his decisions at the helm of a large fundamentalist institution. I’m hoping he continues to make positive changes, such as his controversial tack on the use of demerits at the university and his changing stance on music (see his open letter for more on both). I wonder if it is too much to hope that he would steer a course for Type B fundamentalists to come into greater fellowship and interaction with the Type Cs who don’t hold to the name fundamentalist but are nevertheless similar in their beliefs. (I’m using Joel Tetreau’s ABCs here.) Apparently others are taking note about Olson’s practice, as the FBFI blog recently put his feet to the fire over an endorsement of a church that belongs to the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches. I’m curious to see how Olson answers the very specific questions that have been raised.

These questions are why I am not a part of the fundamentalist movement, because there is such a to-do made about institutions and structures. If you have a fundamentalist institution committed to the movement, then you can’t endorse churches connected to a non-fundamentalist movement. But following Scripture would move you to endorse such churches in the spirit of all Olson has stated above. This is the quandary in store for other fundamentalist leaders who see the deficiencies of an “us four, no more” mentality and really get the Gospel-centered focus of today’s conservative evangelicals. To truly follow their conscience and lead their institutions, they’ll have to invite Mark Dever to their conferences and will inevitably say and do things the fundamentalist base will see as a betrayal of their “cause.”

Here’s hoping that this next generation of fundamentalist leaders are the genesis of a sweeping change within fundamentalism as a whole, and that the wider Church is blessed because of their willingness to follow Christ at all costs.

Reformation Gems 1: David Chytraeus on Creation

~ Bob Hayton

The Reformation Commentary on Scripture is a beautiful set of books compiling exegetical thoughts and pastoral comments from the Reformation era. Most of the content of this new commentary set is largely inaccessible to the average pastor or teacher today. Indeed, many of the works quoted have not been translated into English, and some that were have long been forgotten.

Each work in this series, culls from the printed works of dozens of Reformation era figures to compile a variety of selections arranged in order by chapter and verse for the given biblical book. Each entry, is given a heading by the editors, and then an excerpt from an original source follows. The resulting collection of comments on Scripture from leading voices of the Reformation is as beautifully presented as it is a joy to read.

I want to start a series where I excerpt some choice selections from the gems contained in this commentary series. The first three volumes in this series have only recently been printed: Galatians & Ephesians (Vol. 10), Ezekiel & Daniel (Vol. 12) and Genesis 1-11 (Vol. 1). Today’s selection will be from the Genesis volume that just arrived in the last week at my doorstep.

The following excerpt is from David Chytraeus (1531-1600), one of the authors of the Formula of Concord (1577), and a Lutheran professor and theologian. He is giving some introductory comments on the book of Genesis in his own commentary on the entire book. I thought this selection brilliantly shows that these Reformers were not cold scholars or ivory exegetes, rather they were passionate for God and His Word, and this passion bleeds out through their writings.

Created to Share All of God’s Goodness

David Chytraeus: God created human beings for this reason, so that there might be a creature to be seen in this world with whom he could share himself–his goodness, wisdom, righteousness and happiness for all eternity–and by whom he might in turn be acknowledged and celebrated. Indeed, God does not impart himself or his blessings except to those who acknowledge him and who knowingly delight in his wisdom and goodness. God therefore wishes to be known by us human beings: and in order that he might be known, not only did he disperse rays of his light and wisdom into human minds, but he also disclosed himself to our first parents right away, speaking with a clear voice, and revealed the hidden promise of his Son, the mediator. Later, he also committed to writing the trustworthy teaching handed on through the prophets, Christ, and the apostles, which he wishes to be read by us, heard, pondered, set forth and explained to others. By our reading and reflecting on these writings, he kindles in our minds the true and eternal light, righteousness and life. (pg. 3)

Learn more about this commentary series at the Reformation Commentary page at IVPress.com, or check out this sampler (PDF). You can pick up a copy of this latest volume in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture series at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble or direct from IVP. You may want to consider becoming a member with IVP and getting the entire series on a subscription discount of more than 40% per volume.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by IVP. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.