To increase and advance the Kingdom of God. That's it. Isn't it? Nothing fancy. Simple, to the point and broad enough to allow interpretation. With the challenge of finding a new church home and the benefit of many years of ministerial organization with other Christian "thinkers", this is what it comes down to for me. If a church plant or relaunch were in order, I think this is where I would begin the planning stage.
Using The Mission as the litmus test for any process or program allows leaders to operate effectively without being confused about what's acceptable or if they're in line with the organization's main goal. They can lead, manage, direct, create, recruit, develop, mentor, minister, whatever. The organization will tend to take on a personality that resembles its leader(s). But if The Mission is clear and communicated throughout the organization, it should transcend any niche that is created by the individuals who put their personal touch on the programs. In this way, despite humanity, The Mission is honored.
Choose Wisely
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi. You may not know me, but my name is Bob Andrejczyk. I’m Mike’s brother, Becky’s brother-in-law, and I also know your brother (I think – Jay, right?) which is to say, I could probably pick him out in a crowd. Anyway, I found your blog through bexandmike and, each time I check to see if you’ve written, I find myself reading your posts “The Mission” and “Just Visiting”. I have a few thoughts regarding these posts. And since no one has commented so far, I thought my two cents might be welcome.
First, in “The Mission”, you put forth the following as a good, working mission statement for any church: “To increase and advance the Kingdom of God.” Fair enough. I agree with this as long as it is understood that Christ cares about the ends as well as the means that His shepherds use to build His church. You said you would use this mission statement as “the litmus test for any process or program” within the church. My question for this would be, “How do we evaluate the success or failure of a particular ministerial venture that seeks to ‘increase and advance the Kingdom of God’?” Do we measure by the number of people that we’ve drawn into that group or some other pragmatic test? Or do we consider how faithful the leaders of the program (and the program itself for that matter) are to God’s word?
Second, is the church for believers or for unbelievers? A cursory review of the book of Acts will show that the church is undoubtedly for believers. The church is to edify and equip believers so that they might carry out Christ’s command to make disciples. How does a church do this? In short, by being faithful to Scripture: preaching the Word; preparing the members to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in them (i.e. by teaching – wait, here it comes – doctrine) ; sticking to biblical standards in terms of church government and qualifications for leadership; maintaining the outward purity of the church through biblical church discipline. The list could go on. I guess my point would be this: does the church faithfully follow the biblical blueprint for a church? Or do they exhaust all human effort utilizing any and all man-made methods (pop psychology, church growth theory, worldly marketing schemes, etc.) to fill their church with unregenerate people so that they boast of how big and “successful” their church is in advancing God’s Kingdom? Am I saying that unbelievers don’t belong in church? Not by a long shot. As long as they can’t sit in church week after week, comfortable in their sin because they are entertained and never hear the real gospel.
Thirdly, from “Just Visiting”, I was curious about some of your criteria for evaluating a church. Here I would just encourage you to seek out good, biblically sound sources that explain what our criteria for a good church should be. Mark Dever’s website, www.9marks.org, outlines criteria for a healthy church as explained in his book, “The Nine Marks of a Healthy Church”. This is a great resource. “Stop Dating the Church” by Joshua Harris is good as well. He has a chapter that contains criteria very similar to Dever’s. “The Master’s Plan for the Church” by John MacArthur and “Life in the Father’s House” by Wayne Mack and David Swavely are two other solid resources I have on my bookshelf. And, above all, don’t just take their collective word for it. Be a Berean and go to Scripture to see if what they say is true. Music and a pastor’s delivery are merely personal preferences while Christ’s commands to His church are non-negotiable.
Finally, a quick word on altar calls. First, I want you to quote me, chapter and verse, where the first altar call appears in the Bible. Second, do a little research on the history of the altar call and let me know if you think it is a biblical practice. I’m curious to see what you discover.
Thanks for listening. Hopefully it’s the start of a thought-provoking dialogue.
Choose wisely.
Hi. You don't know me either...but I'm the above person's little sister, Lynn. *waves* And I found you via bexandmike as well. I don't know if Bob is getting alerts on this post as well, I hope so, as this comment has been sparked by his.
I agree on many of his points, in what the mission of the church is, being careful in our means to meat that mission, and what/who the church is ultimately for. Yes as Christians we are called to win souls for Christ, however, is that primarily the church's job, or ours? Is the church our equipper or where we go to have the heat taken off of us? A good time on Sunday morning?
The only challenge of his I am really taking interest in is the altar call. But, then I guess it depends on your perspective. If we are to go with the church being for the believer rather than the non-believer, than perhaps the calls for salvation are unwarranted. We should already have had that surrender as believers correct? Maybe so, but is the occasional issued challenge to reevaluate our relationship with God a bad thing? And that's how I view altar calls. After listening to a hopefully spirit filled and driven message is it so horrible to be asked to evaluate the points brought to our attention? To hold the standards posited up next to our lives and see how we compare? To prayerfully search our hearts and be challenged to draw closer in prayer, bible reading, and devotions, that we might be better equipped to complete the mission God has set us here for? Is that not the job of the church to the believer? To shepherd us in our faith?
Isn't that what the apostles did in their many letters to the chruch? Laid it out for the people, taught Christian living, unveiled some of the early church's faults and shortcomings, and challenged them to do better? I know, I know the sermon should be enough of a challenge...but...
Is a sermon so different from one of these epistles? Is an altar call so far removed from these challenges to reevaluate and hopefully affect change in our lives? Maybe these challenges don't need to be altar calls. Public declarations. But to the person who is truly moved, old or new believer, an altar call can be a vehicle into the community the church is supposed to provide. And can be the spark to ignite a deeper relationship between two members of the family of God. Possibly lending accountability, strength, and support to a believer who finds him or herself in a place where that is desperately needed and has yet to be found. Isn't that what the early church was about?
In a world where we all have several worlds to inhabit--our work life being in one city, our family life in another, and a our church life in yet another--it is difficult for the modern church to truly emulate its humble beginnings where lives were contained to one small area--where the person you worked with was also an elder at your church, and your best friend sat next you in the pew every Sunday. The world as we know it presents unique challenges, not in any way insurmountable by God, if an altar call is helping people connect and deepen godly relationships, and perhaps even increase the kingdom, in only by one sincere convert in a year...is that so bad? Will God not rejoice for just that one? I believe he will. And as for the believers. Listen up to those altar calls. That final challenge at the end of a sermon. And ask yourself--does God mean me?
Lynn,
Quickly:
1. He was talking about altar calls for unbelievers, a "prayer for salvation. Here are some resources for further study:
a. http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=altar+call
b. http://www.bbcchurch.org/bbcaudiosermons.php - my pastor preached a message on June 4, 2006 called "The Effectual Call or the Altar Call?"
One more note: the practice of altar calls originated with Charles Finney. It was an outworking of his pelagian theology. Pelagianism is a heresy condemned by the church for its entire history.
2. Altar calls for believers? Sounds like prayer time to me. I would encourage you to study the "Regulative Principle of Worship".
Thanks.
i guess ultimately thats what i was getting at. the prayer time for believers. how often do you think to pray about something, but then get distracted and don't? this sort of set up says: you need to pray about this, here's a great opportunity to do so. even if its turning to someone else in the pew and saying you need to pray about it. as for unbelievers...i guess i still believe it can be an open door for discipleship given the correct approach and number of altar workers to make it a personal experience, as it should be, not just some mass prayer to show yourself off, or make the church think they are all righteous and increasing their numbers. but i'll check out the sources. :) thanks.
Post a Comment