Time Enough to Learn

    Next year I will celebrate the thirty-ninth anniversary of my ordination into Christian ministry. I began my preaching ministry two years before in the Summer of 1981. That would appear to be 41 years ago. This week I have read and studied Scripture in the original language. I was able to read with understanding detailed, academic commentaries on the text for the week. I was able to thoughtfully reflect and interact with what others have said before. And I was able to look back upon my own most recent journeys through the same text. As is most often the case, despite the number of times I have gnawed over the bones of the same texts, I was able to find something new to say about it. Not novel. Not a discovery which had laid dormant unseen by any exegete in the last 2000 years…just hard work providing a new perspective on one particular story recorded by John in his Gospel. 

    I might be getting the hang of this. Some young preachers wake every Monday morning in fright “what will I preach on Sunday!?” I never do. Not because I am arrogant but because I have a plan. I knew the coming Sunday was, in fact, coming on the very date in the calendar. I made preliminary forays into the text and prepared a plan which gave order and symmetry to the entire process. On Monday I turn to the plan and begin going through my weekly checklist. 

    Why do it at all? When I opened LOGOS there were at least 2 past messages cataloged from the passage in question. Why not re-preach one of them? Sometimes it is possible and desirable to rework new material into old material reusing prior exegesis. (If of course, the exegesis was sufficient, to begin with.) Surely after all these years of experience, I could just “wing it.” Forty-one years of preaching is enough time to learn that “winging it” is an affront to the God who called me. It is an admission that I am lazy and unfocused. Sunday is/was/will come. Every week. All that experience in ministry, some of which was very hard-earned, has taught me that I still have enough time to learn what can be known about ministry and how to preach the Word well…just enough time every week. 

    I get tired. Everyone gets tired. Yet, when I hear of preachers who do not have enough time to prepare thoroughly every week to preach whether because of excessive other work or misplaced priorities I am baffled and concerned. “What did you think you were getting into?” Our main job—really our only divinely appointed task is “prayer and the ministry of the Word.” That is it. Everything else we are called to do flows from that divine appointment. Calling. Visiting the sick. Leading in worship. Leading in meetings. Leading staff. Everything flows from our word-formed pulpit work. If you are prioritizing these other activities at the expense of the pulpit you still have a lot to learn. 

    I hear of preachers who are burned out and discouraged by their work. Often those who cite such difficulties are the very ones who have allowed other priorities to creep in and handicap if not cripple their preaching. With little time to devote to exegesis, reading, writing, study, and prayer they have allowed other people’s priorities to crowd out what should be their single priority because it is God’s.

    You have the time to fix this. If you are behind, burned out, or burdened by the hamster-wheel drudgery of badly defined ministry you can stop, recalibrate, and get back on track. There is some natural talent involved, but for the most part, it is a matter of work, direction, commitment, and pluck. You have time enough to learn good ministry habits. You have time to learn from your mistakes. You have time to learn from the ancients. You have time to learn from the contemporary masters of the craft. You have time to learn from trusted mentors. You have time to learn from both academic studies and from practical. You have time to learn from deeply committed men of renowned faith and from cynics who question everything. You have time to look back at what you have done and correct your course and you have time to look forward and chart the future. You have time enough to learn. It may just be a matter of will.

Why Theology?

    My primary goal in this space throughout this year is to help preachers become better, more focused preachers, and to help those who listen to preaching to be better-equipped listeners. 

    Since I completed my formal education for ministry in the 1980s there have been many changes in the process of preparing candidates for all forms of ministry. This is likewise true of the preaching ministry. When I began my career in ministry most people in ministry; whether called preacher, pastor, reverend, parson, or just by name, filled the role of a generalist. We performed the tasks each of those names describes. Preaching, intra-personal pastoral care, administrative, didactic teaching. The single greatest change in my 40 plus years of ministry is the fragmentation of ministry into narrowly defined, radically segregated specializations. The tragedy is that most congregations of most denominations still function as a one-man shop while functioning amid evolving concepts of how ministry should be done. There are several consequences.

1. Loss of ability in the pulpit.

2. Loss of authority in the pulpit.

3. Loss of accountability in the pulpit. 

And here is where you may get a little uncomfortable. For many congregations and the communities, they serve, the revolutionary model of ministry which emerged in the transition from the 20th to the 21st century has been a failure. Rather than preparing and deploying equipped preachers, the current model has deployed a generation of entitled religious specialists who are not flexible enough to function in the typical congregation to which they are called, and for whom the center of gravity which undergirds ministry has completely shifted. 

    Most young ministry candidates are instructed to have a philosophy of ministry. Virtually every Megachurch has an individualized philosophy of ministry—as if cultural and social factors define and drive what should be believed and taught. What we need is less philosophy of ministry and more theology. Right theology, properly articulated from the pulpit is the traditional means by which disciples are made, trained, and deployed for service. There are not enough consultants to be hired which can enable a congregation to outrun bad theology. And virtually any strategy or tactic combined with properly conceived logistics will be productive in the context of a properly articulated Biblical Theology. 

    I can hear the objections. And that is fine. I will simply answer them. 

    Doctrine is the structure upon which things rest. The New Testament is filled with memorable stories of the ministry of Jesus, the foundation of the Church, and the ongoing work of the Apostles. Gospel, Acts, Epistle, and Apocalypse cannot be properly understood apart from the doctrinal content upon which each book is built. “Whoa there, Bob…What about instruction about right conduct and moral application of the faith?” Glad you asked because that just makes my point even more forcefully. Correct doctrine preached and taught publicly and privately is the foundation for all the morality we find in scripture. I invite you to look at the following passages, examples from Paul, James, Peter, and John. Each addresses moral or behavioral issues by grounding and describing them in doctrinal terms. Though their words are recorded in the New Testament, and we read them therein, make no mistake; This is preaching. This is teaching. This is spiritual formation. This is the work of ministry. This is Theology as the basis for ministry. This is what we are called to do, and it is this work which will abide long after the latest fads and fashions have been swept into the dustbin of history. 

“1Corinthians 15:1   Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 1Corinthians 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:1–2 ESV)

“James 5:19   My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, James 5:20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19–20 ESV)

“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,” (1 Peter 3:15 ESV)

“1John 4:1   Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 1John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.” (1 John 4:1–3 ESV)

Because correct doctrine is the structure upon which moral instruction can be based. Without this structure, those who are being directed to behave in such a way can always ask “why, by whose authority, for what reason?” These are questions that require clear, doctrinal answers. The place for doctrine is primarily the Pulpit. Unfocused, vacuous preaching creates vacuous, unfocused disciples. Confused disciples are attracted by novelty, trivia, and entertainment. We have too big a task to allow it to become an aimless distraction. 

    Why theology? Because Christianity is theology! To be Christian means believing specific things about the nature of our world. To be Christian means affirming the trustworthiness and truth of the Bible. To be Christian means accepting the reality of the fall and thus the culpability of humanity. To be Christian means confessing the mysterious incarnation of the Word of God—Jesus Christ who emptied Himself of the divine station to redeem those made in the image of God. These are not truths which spring from human emotion. They are not the conclusions of unbiased observation of the world. They are not “discoverable”.  They are not obvious. They are known by faithful preaching, patient teaching, sensitive prompting, courageous leading. 

    Without theology, all that you have is power, emotion, technique. Without theology, the channel to God is cut and you are left to your own devices. If you wish to make your mark in ministry in that fashion, go your merry, pragmatic way. Guys like me will be there to pick you up and mend the broken hearts and empty minds of your poor sheep.

Phobic Ranting about Planning

    For the second week in a row, at the very beginning of the new year, I am writing a blog post without reference to a bigger plan. It scares me. For me, having no plan is like every monster I ever imagined underneath my bed, waking me up in the middle of the night, looking me square in the eye saying clearly, but accusingly “what do you think you’re doing?” No plan is like looking into a deep hole and not knowing whether there is water at the bottom, dirt, or just more dark. Not having a plan, is for me worse than any nightmare where I can’t remember my locker number and am late for class. I don’t like not having a plan. It scares me. It slows me down. And things won’t be right until I get a plan in place. 

    Now there is a reason why I’m working without a net, at least for this week. I had to begin both Monday and Tuesday out of the office. That always throws me. Now it is Tuesday afternoon, Friday morning as I revise, edit, proof, and finalize this essay. I still need to get some work done towards a first draft. The whole while I’m thinking “You wouldn’t be behind and would not need to worry if you’d gotten your plan finished.” When I open my To-do list in Things it’s there in front of me or waiting to pounce: Go over the Blog plan. And by “go over” what I mean (or meant when writing the task) FOCUS! Compare what you wrote last year with what you wish to write this year! Buckle down! 52 weeks 52 posts. Now 50 of course. Thank you for letting me share my a-planophobia with you. I feel better already. 

    As bad as it feels staring into a planless abyss I am happy to report that there is no similar anxiety when it comes to preaching. That plan was in place months ago, and blog planning was scheduled to be a part of my overall preaching plan but I did not complete the work I assigned to myself. Fortunately, there is still time for the work to get done before January gets too far away. And now…a limerick:

Some think limericks lame,

For others, they’re simply too tame

They skip and they rhyme

And every time

They’re alike but never the same.

Thoughts About the So-Called New Apostolic Reformation

Because of its impact upon current events, at both the political and congregational level I want to discuss one of the more headline-grabbing developments in contemporary Christian life. Specifically, the “New Apostolic Reformation.”  I will get right to the point. This movement brings to my mind the Holy Roman Empire which was once famously described as being “Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire” Similarly the “New Apostolic Reformation”, (Hereafter abbreviated to NAR), is not new, certainly not Apostolic in the sense implied, nor is it a reformation. I will discuss each of these identity markers, in turn, ending with the middle term.

    Despite its current popularity and cultural impact, the kind of theological gerrymandering exemplified in the NAR is not new. The first charismatically driven power-grab of this type arose with Montanism in the Second Century. While maintaining broad theological alignment with the Great Church tradition Montanism was distinctive for its teaching regarding the “new prophecy” couched in ecstatic experiences. This new prophecy, combined with a conservative personal ethic presented itself as an alternative to the then current biblically derived model of Church leadership. Montanism and the NAR share the distinctive perspective of new revelatory experiences as supplanting the New Testament prerequisites for leadership. This has also been the norm in the first and second waves of the neo-charismatic movements. Rather than relying on the shared, reviewable, public information found in the Bible, the model for leadership is an individual or individuals who elevate their experiences above Scripture. 

    This brings us to a quick look at the term “reformation.” The idea of reform implies that the body you have may not be perfect, but it is fixable. It was not the intent of Hus, or Wycliffe, or the morning stars of the reformation to create a new ecclesiastical structure. They wanted to fix what was broken and refocus what had become distracted in the Church as they knew it. The same is true of Luther’s first attempts at reform. It is not until the reformers received pushback and threats that it became apparent that new ecclesiastical bodies would come into existence. Even then the goal of the reformers was to purify and reform the single universal Church founded by Christ. 

    The NAR functions almost entirely by founding new or breakaway bodies rather than seeing its role as bringing new life to the historic, unified Church. It has risen with the expansion of independent, “evangelical”, congregations with little if any historical, theological, or ecclesiastical moorings, aligned only to the “prophetic revelations” of the founder/Pastor/CEO. The broader movement is coordinated by like-minded founders/prophets who are accountable only to themselves. This is not reformation in the traditional sense. 

    Finally, let’s think about the word Apostolic. The NAR believes and teaches that their movement is based upon the rebirth of the Biblical office of Apostle. By this, they mean that the prophet/leaders of the movement are equal in authority and inspiration to the Apostolic band called by Jesus and authorized by being witnesses to His Resurrection. There are two lines of argument which show this to be wrong.

When we correlate Acts Chapter 1 with 1 Corinthians 15.1-11, we find the minimal requirement for the Apostolic office was individuals who had seen the risen. Christ. It is possible to extrapolate that the alignment of these two texts implies that Paul had seen Jesus (presumably in Jerusalem) during His ministry and did not respond in faith. Clearly, the NAR prophets cannot be qualified as Apostles in the same way that the NT Apostles were. They fail to meet the requirement of having witnessed Jesus' ministry and/or His resurrection appearances. 

    The second line of argument is historic and requires further reflection on the era of the Reformation. One of the central arguments of the Reformation was the locus of “Apostolic” authority. The Roman Catholic position is that the structures of Episcopal succession, the scriptures, and tradition were the repository of the Apostolic witness. This was embodied for the Roman Church in the Bishop of Rome, the presumed successor of Peter. 

    The Protestant (both Lutheran and Reformed) position is that the Apostolic authority is found in the Scriptures. Ecclesiastical councils and structures are only authoritative to the extent that they speak with the voice of Scripture. These positions are well known, and yes,  I realize that I have left out more than a third of the global Christian community, in that the Orthodox Church did not have a dog in this particular fight, but the fact of the matter is that during the Reformation both sides had a clear understanding of what they meant by “Apostolic.” And it did not ever, occur to anyone, on either side that what was really needed were new Apostles. Why? Because they could read the same two texts I alluded to earlier. Each side assumed the same Apostles, it was the path back to and definition of Apostolic authority—not identity, that was at stake. 

    Wouldn’t it have been a whole lot easier for Luther to simply decide “Hey! I’ll just declare myself a new Apostle and found the whole thing upon myself?” They called Calvin the Pope of Geneva, if he thought it possible and passible why didn’t he just claim to be the Apostle to Switzerland? 

    Because it is silly and absurd, that’s why. The idea that something which never occurred to Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Knox, or the Campbells—in far more threatening circumstances—only came to light in the 20th century through the work of C. Peter Wagner and his cronies begs credulity and speaks volumes about the Biblical and theological gullibility of the contemporary Church. 

    So now we have healings, words of knowledge, prophecies (social, political, and economic), predictions, demonic exorcisms, demagoguery, and profiteering and a broad part of our culture thinks that it is both Biblical and normal, when it is neither. 

    How do we respond? First of all, don’t argue. These folk are impervious to scripture and reason and their conception of the “great tradition” is almost entirely hostile. There is no Biblical or theological authority that can reach someone whose personal pastor has convinced her/him that his words are equal to scripture. Secondly, bear fruit. The best argument for Biblical Christianity is the fruit of the Spirit

“Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22–23 ESV)

There are lots of people who may want to argue with you, far fewer who will argue with Paul.

    Finally, to the extent that it is up to you, carefully consider what your church hears musically and acquires for its youth and other educational programs. The NAR, by its nature, is a well-funded and invasive theological species. The best way to fix problems is to avoid them. If you preach use clear, understandable language to layout theological concepts. When the Bible is oblique, make it as clear as you can without being inaccurate. Preach, teach, and lead in such a way that the mature are expected to act with maturity and the immature can be nurtured in their growth.  

    Jesus died for the Church. He asks us to live for her. Faithfully, lovingly, and kindly—but with determination. Let’s do that this year, shall we?