Voddie Baucham says:

God has designed your family—not the youth group, not the children’s ministry, not the Christian school, but your family—as the principle discipling agent in your children’s lives.

Todd Friel Interviews Paul Washer

Not many preachers want to hear this

Am I The Center of The Universe?

Probably not.


HT: The Avenue

I stole this entire post

I'm ordering another book today. The link for you to order is at the bottom of this post. I don't know if this is legal (probably not) but I'm posting an entire post I stole from The Discerning Reader. It is a review of the book I'm ordering. Tim Challies wrote the review, his blog is here. If the book is even close to what you will read below it will prove to be one of the best purchases I have made in a long time.

The Trellis and the Vine is a metaphor Colin Marshall and Tony Payne use to introduce a mind-shift in ministry that they insist will change everything. That is no small claim. A trellis, of course, is a structure that is used to support, to hold up, a vine. In this metaphor the trellis refers to the administrative work within a church, those tasks that, though important, are not actually directly related to discipling people. Vine work, on the other hand, is those tasks of working with the vine, drawing people into the kingdom through evangelism and then training them to grow in their knowledge of God and their obedience to him. As the authors say, "The basic work of any Christian ministry is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of God’s Spirit, and to see people converted, changed and grow to maturity in that gospel."

The problem, though, is that trellis work tends to take over from vine work. Perhaps it’s because trellis work is easier and less threatening; perhaps the trellis work looks more impressive. But for one reason or another, many Christians, and pastors in particular, soon find themselves consumed with trellis work, leaving them little time and attention for the vine. "Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that in many churches, maintaining and improving the trellis constantly takes over from tending the vine."  

What Marshall and Payne suggest in this book is that most Christian churches need to undergo a radical re-evaluation of what Christian ministry really is. They need to go back to the very basics to understand the aims and goals of ministry, to learn how it proceeds and to see afresh the part we play in it. The authors argue that structures don’t grow ministry any more than trellises grow vines, and that most churches need to make a conscious shift—away from erecting and maintaining structures, and towards growing people who are disciple-making disciples of Christ.

They offer a list of eleven changes of mindset that may be necessary for churches: from running programs to building people; from running events to training people; from using people to growing people; from filling gaps to training new workers; from solving problems to helping people make progress; from clinging to ordained ministry to developing team leadership; from focusing on church polity to forging ministry partnerships; from relying on training institutions to establishing local training; from focusing on immediate pressures to aiming for long-term expansion; from engaging in management to engaging in ministry; from seeking church growth to desiring gospel growth.

Having done this, they show that every Christian is called to be a vine worker. This is not the exclusive domain of pastors or elders, but is the call of God upon all believers: At the most basic level, the Bible says that Jesus doesn’t have two classes of disciple: those who abandon their lives to his service and those who don’t. The call to discipleship is the same for all.

The basic agenda for all disciples is to be a disciple-maker. This does not point us simply to evangelism, but also to assisting other Christians grow in holiness. Whether evangelizing or discipling (or “training” as they prefer), the basic call of the Christian is to speak God’s Word to others. Therefore every Christian is an evangelist and every Christian is a minister. Marshall and Payne point to the concept of “gospel partnership” which they say is the normal Christian life. It means standing together united in the gospel, determined to live as citizens of heaven in the midst of our corrupt generation, longing and striving to see the gospel be defended and proclaimed, and bravely copping the conflict, struggle and persecution that inevitably follow.

Meanwhile, the heart of training “is not to impart a skill, but to impart sound doctrine.” We are to train one another to reject false doctrine, and to conform hearts and lives to sound doctrine. "Good biblical training results in a godly life based on sound, health-giving teaching."

Such shifts in mindset will necessary impact just about every other aspect of church life, extending even to the preaching of the Word and the call of some Christians into full-time service for the gospel. The authors cover such topics within the book, even going so far as to (dangerously and maybe a little mischievously) title a chapter “Why Sunday sermons are necessary but not sufficient.”

The Trellis and the Vine, a book I am sure I will read again very soon, helped me to see, more clearly than ever I think, how much of what passes for ministry within a church is really “mere” trellis work. Of course such work is important but it can so easily taken on undue prominence and become the heart of the church’s work. Meanwhile, the vine, the people, suffer neglect. In the past I have been involved in “trellis” churches and can attest to the grave danger they pose. This book has given me so much to think about, so much to reflect upon.

Mark Dever declared The Trellis and the Vine “the best book I’ve read on the nature of church ministry.” That is no small praise from a man who has dedicated much of his life’s work to that very subject. I am inclined to agree with Dever (who is infinitely more qualified than I am to make such an assessment). This is a very good book and one that offers vast amounts of godly, biblical wisdom. I give it my highest recommendation and would be thrilled to see it in the hands of every pastor and church leader.

Please click to buy it new from WTSBooks.

I thought this was funny

George Castanza (from the Seinfeld show) was in a therapy session. His therapist said something which triggered an alarmed outburst from George - "Oh my God!" he exclaimed. The therapist said, "I thought you didn't believe in God?" To which George replied, "I do for the bad stuff!"

We all know some George's - I think. Anywaay, I thought it was funny.

Totally, like whatever, ya know!

I think Justin Taylor posted this first.

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

Little Things Mean a Lot

I read somewhere the other day, that worship music (I still think hymns) was written by theologians as poetry to which music was then applied. Anne Steele, (1717-1778) was such a person. The words for one of her pieces are below.

The Saviour calls, let every ear
Attend the heavenly sound;
Ye doubting souls, dismiss your fear,
Hope smiles reviving round.
For every thirsty, longing heart,
Here streams of mercy flow;
And life and health and bliss impart,
To banish mortal woe.
Ye sinners come, ‘tis mercy’s voice;
The gracious call obey;
Mercy invites to heavenly joys,
And can you yet delay?
Dear Saviour draw reluctant hearts,
To thee let sinners fly,
And take the bliss thy love imparts,
And drink, and never die."

Today we have muscians writing "choruses" which seem to revolve mostly around the narcissistic "I". For example this is from "Give Me Your Eyes,"

(Chorus)
Give me your eyes for just one second,
Give me your eyes so I can see,
Everything that I keep missing,
Give me your love for humanity,
Give me your arms for the broken hearted,
The ones far beyond my reach,
Give me your heart for the once forgotten,
Give me your eyes so I can see,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Both are written from a perspective of concern for the lost. But, in Ms. Steele's prose, we get the sense that her concern is God centered and oriented ("Dear Saviour draw reluctant hearts") and that it is He who must intervene. The opposite sense is explicit in the "Give Me Your Eyes," chorus. From this it is obvious that the concern is self-centered and the idea is that we can do everything if God will just help us a little.

These are subtle distinctions I know, but without caring about the little changes in thought, it isn't long before larger issues become almost insurmountable.

"It's quite distressing...to realize this."

Remember Terri Shiavo? I think most American's have at least heard of her. She was the lady who had been comotose for a number of years, diagnosed as being in a "permanent vegetative state." Her husband sued to have her life-support removed. Eventually he won, her life-support was removed and she starved to death.

I was blogging a lot back then on various cultural issues and I did my share about Terri and the decision to allow her to die. I was opposed then based on the belief that human life is sacred and that God will take of it as He wills not as we wish.

Well now comes a study which indicates that I may have been right. The Washington Post has an article that indicates the "vegetative state" diagnosis may not be applicable to all people alike.

...an international team of scientists decided to try a bold experiment using the latest technology to peek inside the minds of 54 patients to see whether, in fact, they were conscious.

One by one, the men and women were placed inside advanced brain scanners as technicians gave them careful instructions: Imagine you are playing tennis. Imagine you are exploring your home, room by room. For most, the scanner showed nothing.

But, shockingly, for one, then another, and another, and yet two more, the scans flashed exactly like any healthy conscious person's would. These patients, the images clearly indicated, were living silently in their bodies, their minds apparently active. One man could even flawlessly answer detailed yes-or-no questions about his life before his trauma by activating different parts of his brain.

"It was incredible," said Adrian M. Owen, a neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council who led the groundbreaking research described in a paper published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine. "These are patients who are totally unable to perform functions with their bodies -- even blink an eye or move an eyebrow -- but yet are entirely conscious. It's quite distressing, really, to realize this."

Obviously nothing will help Terri Shiavo, she's dead, but at least now maybe people like her will not be murdered because they are inconvenient. Yes it is "...quite distressing...to realize this."

Day for rummaging

I started today rummaging through old posts found on some of my favorite blogs. I wrote about one in the post below this one, then I came across this list from Green Baggins. He called it "Toddler Property Laws."

• 1. If I like it, it’s mine.
• 2. If it’s in my hand, it’s mine.
• 3. If I can take it from you, it’s mine.
• 4. If I had it a little while ago, it’s mine.
• 5. If it’s mine, it must never appear to be yours in any way.
• 6. If I’m doing or building something, all the pieces are mine.
• 7. If it looks just like mine, it’s mine.
• 8. If I saw it first, it’s mine.
• 9. If you are playing with something and you put it down, it automatically becomes mine.
• 10. If it’s broken, it’s yours.

Rev. Baggins post was serious. Mine is too, I suppose, but in a totally different sense. The Rev was preaching. I'm just sayin'. We have a toddler in the family, his name is Nate. (Short for Nathaniel).

One day Nate was playing with Gammy's broom: That means Toddler Property Law #7 applies.

Nate "owns" Gammy's Broom!

Big Sister Bridget Wants It! (Isn't she sweet)? 

A Tug of War Did Not Settle The Issue.

Of course the "war" ended with Nate holding the broom, crying his eyes out, yelling mine, mine, mine.

The Rev. Baggins could, of course, turn this illustration into a great sermon; I will leave that to him. All I will say is that in the end Nate was just following Toddler Rule #5.

Everyone's Job - NOT!

All my life I have been in churches that teach it's every Christian's job to "win souls for Christ." To the best of my recollection I have never overtly done that. I told playmates, when I was a child, about my faith in Jesus and invited them to church, but I neve asked Billy or Suzie if they wanted to "receive Jesus as their personal Savior."

As an adult I've always participated in the worship services by either singing in choirs or playing keyboard instruments for congregational singing - or both. Also as an adult, I express my faith to others when the opportunity presents itself. Here again for example, I've never asked Mr. Jones, for example, whom I just met, if he would like to bow his head - in the lunch room - and "receive Christ as his personal savior."

I still participate in the worship services of my church by playing keyboards and teaching adults from time to time. I have never been paid for any of this I always viewed it as part of my "service for the Lord." I still do, in a sense. I have never thought about what I do as a ministry. Prof. Clark has this to say about that:

I realize this is heresy in contemporary evangelicalism, but not everything every Christian does is “ministry.” The baker has a vocation to bake to the glory of God but baking is not his ministry. We need to recover the idea of vocation. Calling the daily work of Christians “ministry” is intended to elevate it but it actually accomplishes the opposite. It devalues it by implying that anything that isn’t “ministry” isn’t valuable significant in itself.

Recently I have been the brunt of a couple of remarks from someone I know along the lines that makes what I do and have always done as a Christian sound almost as though I wasn't really a Christian: All because I have not led someone to a "saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as their personal savior," nor "visited others" like I've been told I should.

In searching scripture I was never able to reconcile the stuff I heard about "everyone should be a soul winner" with what is actually said in the Bible. Still when I was confronted by the person who accused me of "not winning anyone to Christ," I had no answer for him, all I had was a sense of guilt. Thank God for the internet and sound teachers around the world. Here is more of what Prof. Clark says about this issue:

I think the “every member” model probably has a lot more to do with democratic populism than it does with the biblical view of the church. Our Lord did not give the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16) to every member but to the apostles, the first officers in the visible, institutional church. The “every member” model fits well into the program-driven approach adopted by virtually all evangelicals since the 18th century but does it fit Paul’s view of the church elsewhere? It seems to me that, if Paul had such a view, he would have expounded on it in detail in other places but he did not. He did, however, spend a considerable amount of space detailing the nature of the special offices. 1 and 2 Timothy were written to a young pastor. 1 Tim 3 is about the offices of elder or overseer (vv.1-7) and deacon (vv.8-13). Most of 1 and 2 Timothy are about how Timothy should conduct his office as pastor. Much of Titus 1 is taken up with the matter of elders and Titus 2, again, is about the conduct of pastoral ministry. 1 Peter 5 is devoted to the office of elder. In other words, we have extensive revelation about the special offices and precious little about so-called “every member” ministry.

Over the years I've tried to open a dialog with some in church leadership about these kinds of issues by going back historically to what the early American/Puritan church was like. That was like butting my head against a wall. The last answer I got for my efforts was "he's messing with a very fine line." How do you discuss issues with someone who thinks like that? They're attitude seems to be "he's a nut," and "I know better just do as I say, I'm not arguing about it."

The old post I've quoted above has at least reassured me my "discernment" about what I am doing in my church is correct. I serve to glorify God, and we pay big bucks to the hired help (leadership) to do what the Bible commands them to do. But, it is certainly an irritation to have them tell me unscriptural things because I refuse to do what I'm not "called" to do, and we pay them to do what they claim they were "called" to do.

I am of an age now, however, I will tell them to do their jobs and quit trying to palm-off their calling obligations on me through some twisted ideological guilt trip so they can play golf three times a week. Prof. Clark says this:

Strictly speaking, ministry is what ministers do. They administer the Word of God. They fulfill their calling just as God’s people, who hold the office of believer, fulfill their callings (vocations) to bake, to pave streets, or even do radio shows to the best of their ability, before the face of God, to the glory of God . Not everyone in the congregation is a “minister” and frankly, that should be a relief.

It sure is a relief to me.

WTS On Shepherds

Why aren't all preachers taught this way? "Good sermons have to be preached in the context of a pastoral ministry."


Hat Tip to: http://www.inlightofthegospel.org/

An 'R' Rated Book

I'm reading through a book this year that most people never really read. It could be rated 'R' for 'raw', or 'real.' Many people own a copy, but I think it probably sits unread in most homes. It's a fascinating book. It tells stories about people that really good imaginative novels can barely deal with. Here are some examples:

• A man and woman standing in nakedness and shame, blaming each other for what they did wrong.
• An angry and envious man, lures his brother into a field, brutally murders him, and then tries to cover it up.
• The world becomes so corrupt and violent that God decides to virtually wipe out the human population and start over.
• Noah gets drunk, and one of his son dishonors him by committing an immoral act in his father’s bedroom.
• Abraham twice tries to pass his wife off to another man to save his own skin. Later, his son Isaac does the same thing.
• Abraham sleeps with one of the household servants so he can have an heir. This was his wife’s idea, but she becomes so jealous after it happens, that she angrily throws the woman and her son out of house to live in poverty and shame.
• Lot offers to let a violent mob gang rape his daughters. Lot’s daughters later get their own father drunk and sleep with him so that they can have children.
• Jacob, Isaac’s son, is a deceitful mama’s boy who tricks his father and brother out of important family legal rights. He has to run away from home so his brother won’t kill him. He goes to work for his ruthless uncle, who keeps him in virtual slavery for decades.
• Jacob escapes by tricking him and running away. Jacob’s wives live in constant jealousy and competition, continually tricking Jacob and each other in an ongoing battle for supremacy in the family.
• Jacob’s sons loathe one of their brothers, sell him into slavery, then lie to their father and tell him he died.
• Jacob’s daughter Leah is raped. Her brothers exact revenge by deceiving and then murdering the perpetrator, destroying and looting his city, and taking all his family members captive.
• Judah refuses to find a husband for his widowed daughter-in-law, Tamar. So she disguises herself as a prostitute, tricks her father-in-law into sleeping with her, and becomes pregnant.

The Internet Monk has an excellent post about this book (here). You should read it, it might awaken an interest in really reading the Bible.

A.W. Towzer had this to say about these kinds of things, "Our woes began when God was forced out of His central shrine and `things' were allowed to enter. Within the human heart `things' have taken over. Men have now by nature no peace within their hearts, for God is crowned there no longer, but there in the moral dusk stubborn and aggressive usurpers fight among themselves for first place on the throne. "

The more things change the more they stay the same. Turn on the nightly news and you hear about the same kinds of 'R' for raw happenings.

The Bible still presents us with the story of the One who can get us out of all this chaos. If only we would read it.

Divine Transcendence

Reading A.W. Tozer's Knowledge of the Holy, I came across this:

"Once in conversation with his friend Eckermann, the poet Goethe turned to thoughts of religion and spoke of the abuse of the divine name. ”People treat it,” he said, ”as if that incomprehensible and most high Being, who is even beyond the reach of thought, were only their equal. Otherwise they would not say ‘the Lord God, the dear God, the good God.’ This expression becomes to them, especially to the clergy, who have it daily in their mouths, a mere phrase, a barren name, to which no thought whatever is attached. If they were impressed by His greatness they would be dumb, and through veneration unwilling to name Him."

I couldn't help but think of some the conversations and sermons I've heard in which God was made to sound like a "buddy" not the Entity whom I can't begin to understand or comprehend. He is not my "pal" He is my God. I'm afraid to think less of Him than his Being calls for.

In conversation the other day, a friend mentioned "assurance of salvation." I told him I was like Paul working out my salvation in "fear and trembling." The more I try to understand God the more afraid (awe struck is probably better phrasology) I become. Anyway I told my friend, I will be fully assured of my salvation when I am in Heaven. Until then I trust Christ, attempt to worship the Father and hope I am one of His elect.

Just for fun

Just for fun I put a "Donate" button to my Pay Pal acount in the upper right corner. I did this because there are among the "geeks" those who believe you must be sophisticated in "code" in order to have a functional web page.

Not! Even a cave man can do it.

ps: I haven't tested it. You need to do that. Try it.

Interesting Things from Fox News

Fox News often does some interesting things. Today it is taking an Internet Poll on whether or not Obama should conform to some, all or none of some "principles" formulated by a Tea Party group. I can hardly wait to read the responses to this one.

The reason I'm so interested is that I have a suspicion my "fellow Americans" don't know that principled thought requires a pre-determined base of knowledge about how things are. Obama doesn't believe in that nonsense. He is a pragmatist.

By definition pragmatists rely only on the facts of the present moment and act based on the "cash value" (William James) believed to be inherent in the situation.

Therefore, we have for President a man who thinks based on situtional ethics, or relativism if you prefer, and then pragmatically makes his decisions. When that worldview makes decisions you get what our President has said: (1) I will close Gitmo, and (2) We can't close Gitmo. Or (1) Charging the underwear bomber as a criminal was the right thing to do, and (2) who was the idiot who made that decision he is a terrorist. This list could go for the length of time Obama has been in office, so I'll just leave it at that. Pragmatism and principle are diametrical worldviews - they can't mix.