Servants Not Spectators

This is from Tim Goerz:

Servants Not Spectators

April 10th, 2008

(By John MacArthur)

I have often spoken out against all the pragmatic and “seeker-sensitive” approaches to contemporary worship because they tend to diminish the proper place of preaching and replace it with quasi-spiritual forms of sheer entertainment (music, comedy, drama, and whatnot). Any trend that threatens the centrality of God’s Word in our corporate worship is a dangerous trend.

But one of the most disturbing side effects of the seeker-sensitive fad is something I haven’t said as much about: When one of the main aims of a ministry philosophy is to keep people entertained, church members inevitably become mere spectators. The architects of the modern megachurches admit that they have deliberately redesigned the worship service in order to make as few demands as possible on the person in the pew. After all, they don’t want the “unchurched” to be intimidated by appeals for personal involvement in ministry. That’s the very opposite of “seeker sensitivity.”

Such thinking is spiritually deadly. Christianity is not a spectator sport. Practically the worst thing any churchgoer can do is be a hearer but not a doer (James 1:22-25). Christ himself pronounced doom on religious people who want to be mere bystanders (Matthew 7:26-27).

Something is seriously wrong in a church where the staff does all the “ministry” and people are made to feel comfortable as mere observers. One of the pastor’s main duties is to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:12). Every believer is called to be a minister of some sort, with each of us using the unique gifts given us by God for the edification of the whole church (Rom. 12:6-8).

That’s why Scripture portrays the church as a body—an organism with many organs (1 Corinthians 12:14), where each member has a unique role (vv. 15-25), and all contribute something important to the life of the body. “And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it” (v. 26).

I can’t read that verse without thinking of Dizzy Dean. He was a Hall-of-Fame baseball pitcher, whose career peaked in the 1930s. His 1934 season has never been excelled by any pitcher in history. Dean won thirty games that year, a feat that hasn’t been repeated since (though Dizzy himself came close, winning 28 games the following year). But in the 1937 All-Star game, he took a hard line drive off his toe, and the toe was broken. It should not have been a career-ending injury, but Dean was rushed back into the lineup before the fracture was completely healed, and he pitched several games favoring the sore toe. That led to an unnatural delivery that seriously injured his pitching arm. The arm never fully recovered. Dizzy Dean’s major-league career was essentially over in four years.

Something similar happens in any church where there are non-functioning members. The active members of the body become overextended, and the effectiveness of the whole body suffers greatly. Even the most insignificant member, like a toe, is designed to play a vital role.

That truth has been one of the main foundations of my approach to ministry for many years. When I first became pastor of Grace Community Church in 1969, I taught a series on Ephesians, and we spent a great deal of time studying the principle of Ephesians 4:11—that the pastor’s duty is to equip the saints, and it is their duty to shoulder the work of the ministry.

Our people quickly embraced that simple idea, and it transformed our church in a remarkable way. For one thing, we began to see dramatic growth. Within a matter of months, attendance on Sundays had ballooned to almost 1,000. About that same time, a well-known evangelical magazine asked a reporter to write an article about the growth of our church. He visited our services for several weeks, carefully observed how the ministry functioned, interviewed scores of people, and then wrote an article titled “The Church with 900 Ministers.”

That title perfectly summarized what has made Grace Church unique for all these years. Nowadays we have several thousand ministers, but the principle is still the same. Everyone is expected and encouraged to be involved in active ministry. Almost no one in our church would ever view ministry as the exclusive domain of professional clergy. If you want to be comfortable as a mere spectator, Grace Church is not the church for you.

I am not making a case for egalitarianism. Much less would I argue against the need for full-time vocational pastors who devote their whole lives to prayer, the study of the Word of God, and the training and equipping of the saints (cf. Acts 6:4; 1 Timothy 4:14-15; 5:17). The church needs leaders, and God has specifically called men to leadership and set them in places of authority in the church (cf. Hebrews 13:7, 17).

But the New Testament pattern is clear and inescapable: Every Christian is gifted and called to ministry. The spiritual gifts we are given are not for our own sake, but for the benefit of the whole body (1 Corinthians 12:4-7). “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them” (Romans 12:6, emphasis added).

In my experience, it is not difficult to motivate gifted people to minister. The gift of mercy, for example, might practically be defined as the desire combined with the ability to show mercy. A person truly gifted to teach wants to teach. All the average person needs is encouragement and opportunities to employ his or her gifts. If faithful leaders properly train, equip, and guide people to the right ministry opportunities, the church will flourish.

If you are a church leader, I hope you have embraced your duty to equip people for ministry. It is, after all, one of your main duties—if not the single most important task for leaders in today’s church.

If you’re a lay person, I hope you’ll find a place where you can use your gift in the work of the ministry. Maybe you’ll be used by the Lord to start an epidemic of lay ministry in your congregation.

The Truth War

Tim Goerz

Here’s another super article. It’s actually a quote from McArthur’s new book “The Truth War”. A treatise on postmodernism. An excellent book we all need to read.

Postmodernism is not just a cultural issue, it has crept into mainstream evangelicalism. As we talk to folks about Weatherford Presbyterian and what makes it different, we are assured to encounter this philosophy.

To get us started, let's consider this notion that certainty about anything is inherently arrogant.

That view is wildly popular today. The belief that no one can really know anything for certain is emerging as virtually the one dogma postmodernists will tolerate. Uncertainty is the new truth. Doubt and skepticism have been canonized as a form of humility. Right and wrong have been redefined in terms of subjective feelings and personal perspectives.

Those views are infiltrating the church, too. In some circles within the visible church, cynicism is now virtually regarded as the most splendid of all virtues. We began the introduction to this book with a prime example of that [i.e., a reference to the Christianity Today feature on the Emergent movement, which article contained Kristin Bell's confession that she has no idea what the Bible means; Brian McLaren's belief that no one has the gospel right yet; and several other statements characterizing biblical truth as too hazy or too slippery to lay hold of and proclaim confidently]. A relentless tone of postmodern angst about too much certainty pervades that whole movement. . . .

The central propositions and bedrock convictions of biblical Christianity—such as firm belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture, a sound understanding of the true gospel, full assurance of salvation, settled confidence in the lordship of Christ, and the narrow exclusivity of Christ as the only way of salvation—do not reconcile well with postmodernism's contempt for clear, authoritative truth-claims. The medium of postmodern "dialogue" thereby instantly and automatically changes the message. And the rhetoric of the Emerging Church movement itself reflects that.

Listen, for example, to how Brian McLaren sums up his views on orthodoxy, certainty, and the question of whether the truths of Christianity are sound and reliable in the first place:

How ironic that I am writing about orthodoxy, which implies to many a final capturing of the truth about God, which is the glory of God. Sit down here next to me in this little restaurant and ask me if Christianity (my version of it, yours, the Pope's, whoever's) is orthodox, meaning true, and here's my honest answer: a little, but not yet. Assuming by Christianity you mean the Christian understanding of the world and God, Christian opinions on soul, text, and culture . . . I'd have to say that we probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong. [A Generous Orthodoxy, 293.]

McLaren suggests that clarity itself is of dubious value. He clearly prefers ambiguity and equivocation, and his books are therefore full of deliberate double-speak. In his introduction to A Generous Orthodoxy, he admits, "I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity." [Ibid., 23.] A common theme that runs throughout most of McLaren's writings is the idea that "there is great danger in the quest to be right."]

. . . . . . . . .

[The argument seems to be] that if we cannot know everything perfectly, we cannot really know anything with any degree of certainty. That's an appealing argument to the postmodern mind, but it is entirely at odds with what Scripture teaches: "We have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16).

That's not to suggest, of course, that we have exhaustive knowledge. But we do have infallible knowledge of what Scripture reveals, as the Spirit of God teaches us through the Word of God: "We have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God" (1 Corinthians 2:12). The fact that our knowledge grows fuller and deeper—and we all therefore change our minds about some things as we gain more and more light—doesn't mean that everything we know is uncertain, or outdated, or in need of an overhaul every few years. The words of 1 John 2:20-21 apply in their true sense to every believer: "You have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth."

The message coming from postmodernized evangelicals is exactly the opposite: Certainty is overrated. Assurance is arrogant. Better to keep changing your mind and keep your theology in a constant state of flux.

By such means, the ages-old war against truth has moved right into the Christian community, and the church itself has already become a battleground—and ominously, precious few in the church today are prepared for the fight.

Common Compromise

Tim Goerz adds:

In these current times, with the US about to go into the 5^th year of the Iraq war and the still very real threat of Muslim militancy, there are a lot of us that are hoping for peace. Not just to bring peace to Iraq and Afghanistan but peace with the Muslim fundamentalists. We ask ourselves and each other “can’t we just find some common ground with these people, to live and let live”?

Noble thoughts and a very sincere desire, no? But is this a Biblical thought process?

Consider the thoughts in the following recent article from Pulpit Magazine.

Common Compromise

December 13th, 2007

(By Nathan Busenitz)

For many of you, this will be old news. But due to several projects I’ve been focused on the last couple months, I’m just now having an opportunity to respond. Please bear with me.

(First a little background. . . )

This last October, a group of 138 Muslim scholars and clerics produced an open letter to Christians entitled, “A Common Word between Us and You.” The letter was an attempt to bridge the differences between Islam and Christianity, to promote amicable relations, open dialogue, and even cooperation between the two faiths. Part of the letter read as follows:

So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works. Let us respect each other, be fair, just and kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill.

On November 18, just a month ago, several Christian scholars from Yale Divinity School responded with a full-page spread in The New York Times. Their response (which was endorsed by over 100 Christian leaders, including Rick Warren, Brian McLaren, and Robert Schuller) expressed delight in the invitation offered by these Muslims. Here is part of that response:

It is rather a deep insight and courage with which they have identified the common ground between the Muslim and Christian religious communities. . . . That so much common ground exists—common ground in some of the fundamentals of faith—gives hope that undeniable differences and even the very real external pressures that bear down upon us can not overshadow the common ground upon which we stand together.

(Now a few thoughts. . . )

Do Christians actually have “common ground upon which we stand together” with the leaders of a false religion? Is this the type of conciliatory attitude we should have toward those who actively promote Islam? Should we simply overlook our differences and embrace each other in a spirit of ecumenical tolerance?

Obviously not.

Certainly, the New Testament commands us to love other people. But the love of the Bible is not a free-styled, all-embracing, blind acceptance of every wind of doctrine for the sake of dialogue. It is, in fact, just the opposite. It is a love that speaks the truth (or as Paul said, “rejoices with the truth”), not a love that promotes tolerance at the expense of sound doctrine.

Just listen to how Jesus and the apostles responded to false teachers and those who embraced them:

Jesus said: Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Paul said: If any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Peter said: It has happened to them [false teachers] according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

John said: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Jude said: Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. . . . [They are] clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

The interchange between Muslims and evangelical Christians is just the latest example of the ecumenical compromise that has plagued American Christianity since the rise of 19th-century theological liberalism. In recent decades, the contemporary church has exchanged expository preaching for seeker-driven programs; doctrinal accuracy for postmodern ambiguity; and biblical precision for cultural popularity. Mainstream evangelicals started by abandoning the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, and along with it, an accurate understanding of the Gospel. Since then, they have capitulated on just about everything else.

It is a sad day in evangelicalism when the most shocking thing about this latest “interfaith dialogue” is that it really isn’t that shocking. In reality, Muslims and Christians have nothing in common. As Paul told the Corinthians:

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be there God, and they shall be My people.” Therefore, “come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean.”

Over 100 “Christian” scholars may have affirmed this latest interfaith group hug. But Paul never would have. And neither would Jesus or the other apostles. As those following in their footsteps, that should make the issue pretty clear for us.