Does Paul Really Mean This?

 1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

11 νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος ᾖ πόρνος ἢ πλεονέκτης ἢ εἰδωλολάτρης ἢ λοίδορος ἢ μέθυσος ἢ ἅρπαξ, τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν.

This is one of those verses that is easy to gloss over because it cannot possibly mean what it seems like it means, right? Paul uses the word συναναμίγνυσθαι. This is an infinitive form and it literally means "to mix together with." This word appears in the LXX in Hosea 7:8 where it reads that "Ephraim mixes himself with the peoples." It appears earlier in 1 Corinthians 5:9 with basically the same usage. It also appears negatively in  2 Thessalonians 3:14 where Paul commands that the recipients "have nothing to do with" certain people. Clearly this word connotes close fellowship.  


Does Paul really mean that we are not to associate with those who do such things if they are in the church? What about grace? Shouldn't we love on these people rather than purge them from our midst?


Obviously there is a place for grace. There is always a place for grace. However, that does not mean that such people should worship in the fellowship. This is tied into the commands for church discipline in Matthew 18. There is a standard of holiness expected for believers.


Now this can easily turn into the kind of legalism seen in some independent fundamentalist churches if we focus on conduct. This is similar to how well-meaning Christian parents raise obedient Pharisees because they focus on the conduct. Obedience to this command starts with the heart. 


What it does not mean is that we should feel comfortable driving to our megachurch in a $50,000 vehicle to hear a sermon about how other people have problems and we need to fix them. It does mean that we need to examine our own hearts and look for these sins. We need to confess them and repent. 


And we also need to take care not to become morality police. This passage refers to people whose lives are characterized by these practices. It does not mean someone who looks at a brother's iPad 2 and thinks how great it would be to have one. It does not mean someone who is out with his friends and occasionally drinks one pint too many. It does not mean someone who has clicked on a link he knows that he shouldn't have and then repented of it. No, this refers to people whose lives are characterized by these sins. You could call them "besetting sins" to use some old parlance. There are no hard and fast lines to be drawn here.


The point is that to Paul the idea of accepting Christ as your Savior without repentance is unthinkable. If anyone does that and his life shows no change then it is time to get back to the gospel because he is not a brother in Christ. 

Who Do You Follow?

 1 Corinthians 3:4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not being merely human?

4 ὅταν γὰρ λέγῃ τις· ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου, ἕτερος δέ· ἐγὼ Ἀπολλῶ, οὐκ ἄνθρωποί ἐστε;

There is no great exegetical gem to mine from this verse, but there is something very important to address in it. I live near Raleigh, North Carolina and off the top of my head I can think of five megachurches. I was a member of one, went to a seminary tied to another, and am familiar with two more. How do you make a megachurch?


I think that you generally start off with good intentions. You start with a man who wants to reach a community with the gospel. If you're smart you get an idea of the people to whom you want to minister. If you want a megachurch you will target middle and upper middle class people. You will get a sense of what those people want and you will provide it as well as you can without compromising the integrity of the gospel. Here in the Triangle area of North Carolina as I'm sure is true elsewhere, if you want to win the people you start with their kids. We're all about our kids here so if we feel like a church is taking care of them we will attend.


Notice how it all starts. It starts with a man. That man is not Jesus. That man is a personality. I've heard Mike Lee, Stephen Davey, J.D. Greear, and Tyler Jones speak or preach. They are all outstanding communicators. They each have their own styles to be sure, but one common thread is that they are outstanding communicators.


As a former member of Hope Community Church it was my understanding that the Grace Brethren Foundation would not give us the considerable loan we needed to complete our building unless there was a large insurance policy on Mike Lee. In other words, he was considered key to the success of the church.


I am working on planting a church with a man like these men. He is an outstanding communicator and has a way of drawing people to him. I am thoroughly convinced that he could lead a megachurch. However, we have some safeguards in place to keep that from happening.


One is that we intend for me to preach occasionally. We have talked about me preaching 1 out of every 4 Sundays, or once a month. I'm not sure if it will be that frequent, but the point is that I will be visible and they will have to hear from me once in a while. It will not be his church. We want for it to be Christ's church.


The other is that we plan to make Luke 14 part of what we present as the gospel. We want to see people come to Christ. However, we want them to come to Christ with their eyes wide open. We want them to understand that this is not a journey of ease, but of hardship. It means enlisting in a war. But if people want to do that we want to help them. We want to see folks following Christ, not us. Otherwise, this verse could be, "I follow Rob," or "I follow Jason." No, we want followers of Christ.

Authorities

John 7:48 Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him?


48 μή τις ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπίστευσεν εἰς αὐτὸν ἢ ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων;

This is the question the Pharisees asked the "officers" who they sent as something of a goon squad to arrest Jesus. The officers refused to do this because they heard the power of Jesus' preaching. They understood something that the Pharisees could not grasp. Jesus was special and His preaching demanded a response.

The problem of course is that Jesus threatened the Pharisees' way of life. If He was right then they were clearly wrong. You don't just take a group of people who have made it their business to be the most right of all the people in society and then expect them to gracefully step aside. The Pharisees weren't going down without a fight. In a couple of chapters we will see how it all comes together.

This is clearly evident in the church today. It started with Rome and the Reformation. You expect to take a corrupt Pope like Leo and threaten him with the Bible? I sincerely doubt that he cared about anything beyond his own glory if the history about him is even partially true. But if Luther was right then that would destroy his whole way of life.

And lest we get on our Protestant high horses about this, take a look at the average megachurch. I just heard a story about a megachurch that could only offer $350/month to a church-planter because of budget issues. This was coming from a senior pastor's office that had a glass wall with a view of the Rockies. I suspect that most megachurches have the same problem. A severely obese person's heart works as hard when he is sitting as mine does when I go out for a run. Because I'm in decent physical shape I can push my body a little bit to run up a hill, climb stairs, etc. The obese person is always in a state of being pushed, so there is nowhere for his body to go.

I hope that the illustration is clear. To embrace the ideas in David Platt's Radical or even Francis Chan's Crazy Love is a threat to the way of life set up by today's churchianity. Why should we have small churches focused on discipleship? Does Mark Driscoll do it that way? How about C.J. Mahaney? John Piper? James MacDonald? No! They all have big churches with home/life/fellowship/small groups. Why should we do small churches.

Well, despite the success of these men's ministries (and I do think that they are all doing great works) I think that we need to let the New Testament guide us instead. Please hear me that I do not think that they are Pharisees either. My point is simply that the leaders and authorities of the day should always be trumped by Jesus. There is just no other way to look at it.

Who is your authority?

Leading Churches

 Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting ^cthey committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

23 χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους, προσευξάμενοι μετὰ νηστειῶν παρέθεντο αὐτοὺς τῷ κυρίῳ εἰς ὃν πεπιστεύκεισαν.

One of the problems I have with blogging through Acts is that I am not always struck by devotional moments to write about. But even when I don't have one of those I can speak to what I believe is a strong doctrinal matter. 

There is of course disagreement about whether Acts should be read descriptively, prescriptively, or both. The more strongly charismatic see Acts as being both throughout. Of course, we can debate the matters of the sign gifts like prophecy and tongues. However, I think that this passage pretty clearly shows us how Paul meant for church leadership to work.


He appointed πρεσβυτέρους at the churches. Note that this is plural. He did not appoint pastors to be kings at the churches like bishops. He appointed multiple elders at the churches.


What does this mean? We should follow his model. We do not want to go down the road of the pastor as the king. Instead, we want to follow with having a plurality of elders to run the churches. For more information, this is a great resource.

The First Megachurch?

Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,


46 καθ᾽ ἡμέραν τε προσκαρτεροῦντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, κλῶντές τε κατ᾽ οἶκον ἄρτον, μετελάμβανον τροφῆς ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ ἀφελότητι καρδίας

Just a few verses before we saw that three thousand people were saved on Pentecost. I've heard some jokingly say that it was the first megachurch. After all, they suddenly had 3000 Christians gathered together. It seems plausible enough.

However, this verse turns that idea on its head, not to mention the testimony of the rest of the New Testament. Although there were 3000 new converts they did not gather together as 3000. The temple was big, but it certainly was not that big. What we see here is that they did indeed meet together, but most of the ministry was done at home. They had smaller pockets where they broke bread.

I am not about to go all Frank Viola on this. However, I do think that the consistent model of Acts is to have smaller churches. Some may say that it was only because they were poor, marginalized, and did not have any way to build Six Flags Over Jesus as so many folks enjoy each weekend. I would say that it was because smaller bodies were the only way for them to truly serve each other.

This is why I'm both excited and terrified about our church plant. I'm excited because I think that we're moving toward the New Testament model of the church. I'm terrified because there is nowhere to hide. It's not that I necessarily have anything to hide, but there is a certain comfort in having an out, as it were. I suspect I'm not the only megachurch attendee who feels that way. However, that is American Churchianity talking and not Christianity.

Slice of Laodicea in America

Revelation 3:17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

17 ὅτι λέγεις ὅτι πλούσιός εἰμι καὶ πεπλούτηκα καὶ οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω, καὶ οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ἐλεεινὸς καὶ πτωχὸς καὶ τυφλὸς καὶ γυμνός,

Here Jesus rebukes the church at Laodicea for being neither hot nor cold.  They were simply lukewarm.  Here He condemns them with evidence of why He would spit them out of His mouth.  It's a pretty indicting list, isn't it?

I think of the American church today.  It is clear that we are rich, we have prospered, and we don't seem to need anything.  We forget that we are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.  And why wouldn't we forget that?  We have built grand edifices to house our "ministries."  We have top-notch sound and video systems.  Our preaching is polished and we could hold our music up against anything published by any label.  It's quite a system we have going on.

The more theologically-minded of us may decry the pomp and money spent by the Roman Church.  The Vatican Museum is something to see and it makes the Protestant wonder how many mouths could be fed with the riches contained therein.  But the same could be said for our megachurches today.  Just the heating and cooling costs alone could feed a village of orphans in Uganda.

I do want to make clear that I think there should be excellence in what we do.  We should preach as well as we can and we should strive to have a gifted preacher delivering the sermon.  Someone with my singing "abilities" has no business trying to lead corporate singing.  But somewhere I think we've crossed a line.  My prayer is that I can be part of a reformation in this area.  Will you join me?

Doxology

Ephesians 3:20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

20 Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεθα ἢ νοοῦμεν κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν, 21  αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν.

This is arguably the end of the doctrinal half of Ephesians.  I might argue that it continues until 4:16, but the point is that this kind of a doxology typically marks a break.  Paul is again emphasizing the majesty and glory of God.  This glory is manifested in the church and in Christ Jesus.  Note that I write church with a small c.  The church is τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ (dative form).  It is not that body that has its headquarters in a small country inside Rome.  It is the body of believers throughout the world.

What I want to emphasize is the phrase Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ.  The gloss I have for ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ is "exceedingly abundantly."  Whenever I come across one of these phrases in Paul I tend to think of Luke Skywalker convincing Han Solo to go into the detention area to rescue Princess Leia.  he tells him that "the reward will be...well, much more wealth than you can imagine."  Han Solo replies, "I can imagine quite a bit."

God can deliver more than we can imagine.  It is more than αἰτούμεθα ἢ νοοῦμεν.  I take that in two directions.  One is that we cannot ever out-imagine God.  He has blessings in store that we cannot comprehend. However, the second direction modifies the first.  When I think of blessings I tend to think of material things.  I think that goes with being an American.  It's really very short-sighted as well.  God's blessings go beyond what we ask our think.  We know from Romans that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us because we do not pray as we ought.  I think this is similar.  God will give us more than we ask or think because we do not ask or think rightly.

You may recall that Han Solo ended up getting tremendous blessings, but not what he signed up for.  He was in it for the money, but he ended up getting dear friends and a wife.  Plus, he got to be part of something much bigger than himself.  The metaphor falls short because the gospel is so much more than that and the church is even more glorious than the Rebel Alliance.  But I think that you get the idea.

Are you in awe of how much God has in store for you as a believer?  Are you satisfied when your best life now does not involve material things?

The Gates of Hell

Matthew 16:17-18
(17)  And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
(18)  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(17)  ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ' ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 

(18)  κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

I am not a big fan of word studies as a general rule.  I think that the scholars who translated our English texts are very good at capturing the semantic meaning of various words that we have in Scripture.  However, there are times when the English construction of a passage may be accurate, but does not quite capture the sense of the Greek.  I think that this may be one of them given some of the confusion over this passage.

Here is the Thayer entry:

κατισχύω

katischuō

Thayer Definition:

1) to be strong to another’s detriment, to prevail against

2) to be superior in strength

3) to overcome

4) to prevail

You can see that the ESV translators chose this first definition.  But note that it has something of a passive sense.  This passage is sometimes mistakenly read as the church having to withstand the assault of hell.  However, gates are defensive rather than offensive.  Rather, this passage is saying that hell cannot stand the assault of the church.

How are you living your life?  If you are part of the church (I mean that with a little "c" as I am not Roman Catholic) what are you doing to storm the gates of hell?  We all have seasons of offense and defense with sin. In fact, there is always an element of defense involved.  But going beyond sin what are you doing?  Are you sharing the good news with people?  Are you serving God's people?  Are you serving those who do not know God?  Are you serving your spouse if you have one?  If you're living at home are you honoring your father and mother? 

As I consider these I am fairly convicted.  I'm not sure that the gates of hell have a lot to worry about with me sometimes.  How about you?

The New Kingdom

Ezekiel 37:24-28

(24) "My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes.

(25) They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever.

(26) I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore.

(27) My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

(28) Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore."

This is one of the passages that makes me have some Covenental leanings in my theology. It comes at the end of the chapter where Ezekiel has the vision about the valley of dry bones. If we take this simply at face value, it looks like Ezekiel is speaking about the nation of Israel proper.

However, the imagery of "David my servant" seems to imply to me that Christ is involved here. It looks to me like it predicts the end of days when Christ is reigning in glory. That is when everyone will be united under Him. I just have a hard time reading this and separating Israel from the church.

Either way, this is a powerful prediction. God has a plan and He means to accomplish it. Let's not forget His reason stated in verse 28. This is all for the sake of His name. No matter how you read this passage God must still get all the glory. Let's give it to Him, amen?

Destroying the Destroyer

Jeremiah 50:2-3
(2) "Declare among the nations and proclaim, set up a banner and proclaim, conceal it not, and say: 'Babylon is taken, Bel is put to shame, Merodach is dismayed. Her images are put to shame, her idols are dismayed.'
(3) "For out of the north a nation has come up against her, which shall make her land a desolation, and none shall dwell in it; both man and beast shall flee away.

The circle finally closes on Babylon. God had used Babylon to punish Israel and Judah, but there still had to be a reckoning for their sin. Their time had come and God was going to use Persia to punish them.

I may have mentioned this before, but I think it bears repeating. Just because someone or some organization seems successful we should not leap to the conclusion that they are doing the right things. If we measured success that way we would be inclined to follow the gods of Babylon. After all, they had the upper hand. Their kingdom was incredibly prosperous.

However, in the end they still had to face the true God's wrath. There had to be justice for how they worshiped. Their success was fleeting only because they were instruments in God's hands.

This is why we must use the Bible as our standard for judging ministry. Obviously it leaves some things up to personal preference. I don't think God cares if we use pianos, organs, or guitars in singing our songs. I don't think he cares if we wear suits or skater jackets. What He does care about is the true proclamation of the gospel done by humble leaders who know Him and love Him. That's the kind of place where I want to worship and where I would want to lead if I end up going the pastoral route.

More on Less Babylon

Isaiah 14:22
(22) "I will rise up against them," declares the LORD of hosts, "and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, descendants and posterity," declares the LORD.

I noticed something as I read the notes for this and a similar prediction about Moab in chapter 15. There will be no remnant left. God planned to utterly wipe them out. And, as I noted yesterday, He did.

I contrast this with the promises to Israel. God always promises that a faithful remnant would survive, though a tiny one at times. I'm still not quite sure how that relates to the church, but the point is that the seed of Abraham would always be represented.

It seems amazing to me that so many people get bent out of shape about election in the New Testament when the same principles were clearly at work in the Old Testament. God chose a people. Even when they broke the covenant He remained faithful. We know that God doesn't change, so it must be that the same principles are at work today.

I know that I rejoice in being a wild plant grafted onto the olive tree!

Where is the Emphasis?

Luke 9:18-27 ESV
(18) Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?"
(19) And they answered, "John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen."
(20) Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered, "The Christ of God."
(21) And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one,
(22) saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised."
(23) And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
(24) For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.
(25) For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?
(26) For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
(27) But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."

I want to make a doctrinal point today. Notice that this passage has a parallel in Matthew 16:13-20. The Roman Catholic Church takes the passage in Matthew to justify their belief in apostolic succession. In other words, Jesus made Peter the first pope and the rest have that authority as true apostles.

Why didn't Luke make a big deal about that? Here was a prime opportunity to reaffirm a key doctrinal point, right? Why didn't he emphasize it?

I think that arguing from silence is not particularly strong, but here the silence seems to shout.

Unity

There are some who would say that as a church there should be unity despite differences. In other words, we should look past a lot of things and just all get along. However, I'm not sure that Paul would say that:

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 ESV
(18) For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,
(19) for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

It looks to me like the differences are what make us distinct. Obviously we must have charity over the non-essentials, but we also must recognize that if we disagree we can't both be right.

By the way, if you ever wanted to memorize a chapter of Scripture let me suggest Psalm 117.

Some Tozer

Preaching: Starving at the Father's Table

So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, 
son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, 
Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." 
--John 21:15

There is today no lack of Bible teachers to set forth correctly the 
principles of the doctrines of Christ, but too many of these seem 
satisfied to teach the fundamentals of the faith year after year, 
strangely unaware that there is in their ministry no manifest 
Presence, nor anything unusual in their personal lives. They 
minister constantly to believers who feel within their breasts a 
longing which their teaching simply does not satisfy.

I trust I speak in charity, but the lack in our pulpits is real. 
Milton's terrible sentence applies to our day as accurately as it 
did to his: "The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed." It is a 
solemn thing, and no small scandal in the Kingdom, to see God's 
children starving while actually seated at the Father's table.   
The Pursuit of God, 8.

"Lord, I trust I'm not being critical, but it seems to me that 
there are more and more churches where people are starving at 
the Father's table. I sense the lack in our pulpits of which Tozer 
speaks, and pray that You might bring a refreshing. Amen."

I feel like this sometimes at our church.  It is a sober reminder of what I don't want to have happen at any church where I may get to preach.

Sundays

It's been a busy week for me. We've had some major problems with a system I support at work and that has kept me quite busy. I've had to get some writing done for the end of the semester. Fortunately, it hasn't been too much. I really have very little cause to complain. The only serious task ahead of me is preparation for my Counseling final next Thursday.

I wanted to link this article because of what he wrote about Sundays. I hope that my family will someday look at church that way.

He is Risen!

We went to church this morning and got to hear a very clear presentation of the gospel. Unfortunately, our pastor is so aware of those who might be attending church for the first time that he does not say, "He is risen!" on Easter Sunday anymore. I'm not going to leave the church over this, but it does bother me a little bit. I realize that it's not a big deal and it may make someone new to church wonder about what is going on, but I think it's worth it so that those of us who have placed our hope in Christ can enjoy declaring the fact that Christ is risen indeed.

Continuing the Journey

I attended Journey to Jerusalem for the third straight week today. Today's text was very simple:

Psa 22:1 KJV
(1) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?

I know that I have read this too casually too many times. It is impossible for us to comprehend the perfect fellowship that Jesus had with the Father. Yet on the cross God turned His face from God so that we might have life. He was actually able to forsake His Son so that we could have life in Him. He did this with my sin in mind. If you are in Christ He did this with your sin in mind too.

Think about that for a while. If God the Father had wanted to He could have sent a legion of angels to rescue Jesus, but He didn't do that. Then in the end He had to turn His face from Jesus because He could not bear to look at my sin that was upon Him.

If that doesn't give you a clear picture of Christ's love I don't know what will.

Is This My Church?

Check out this blog entry from C. Michael Patton. I wonder how much of this we have at Hope? The description of the production value of the worship time sounds familiar. Fortunately, our children's ministry still seems like it is focused on Jesus.

Like other churches in the Willow Creek Association, we have been doing a survey to say what we think about our church. Apparently Hybels & Co were surprised to find that the way they were doing things wasn't helping people grow. It turns out that the old traditional practices of Bible study, memorization, etc did more for people than another program at the church.

We're getting ready to start a 6 week study on transformation. The cornerstone to this is an inductive study of the Sermon on the Mount. All small groups are going to work on this together. The past two sermons have been extolling the virtues of Scripture. This has got me thinking.

I wonder if we make a big enough deal about Scripture from the pulpit? The messages are pretty good, but they aren't really teaching a whole lot. It's clear that our pastor is capable of good expository preaching. I think he handles the text he uses faithfully. However, I also know that I would prefer if he got a little deeper into the text. It seems like he finds passages that relate to what he wants to discuss rather than discussing what he finds from going through a text. I guess if this worked for Charles Spurgeon it is OK for Mike Lee too, but I still would like more exposition.

The answer to this problem is always "small groups." We are supposed to get deeper in our study in small groups. However, there are limits there too. I have been told not to get into what I'm learning in seminary. The groups are supposed to be open and it's supposed to feel like anyone could potentially lead one.

Maybe I'm getting a bias from seminary, but I think that there is value in education. I also think that our leaders should be equipped beyond being simple "facilitators." How are we supposed to really grow in grace and knowledge (2 Pet 3:18) without someone teaching us?

That being written, I know some small group leaders and they do a good job. There is nothing that says you need formal training as long as you have good materials. I've been out of the small group leader role for a while so I can't speak to how it is now, but I don't recall much formal training on how to rightly handle the Word of God. This makes me wonder just how important it is to the church.

I guess that there has to be a balance between making the small groups just about community and "what do you think the text means?" and the strict Sunday School structure of a Colonial Baptist. I'm not sure what the right answer is there.

Temperance

I got a note from a friend about a church party that concerned him. It was advertised to the church and held at an elder's house. He was concerned because everyone was drinking alcohol but the pastor and my friend's family.

The question is -- is this OK? It would be a little strange to sponsor a churchwide kegger, for example. However, is it bad for church leadership to be seen drinking (albeit responsibly) in front of the flock?

My theory is that geography dictates this somewhat. This is obviously verboten here in the South or in Texas. Would anyone even care if it was in Seattle?

I don't have any easy answers about this, but it is something worthy of some consideration.

The Value of Liturgy

Check out this blog post by the author of my second-year Greek textbook. There is some stuff in there that got me to thinking.

I've read about some people who have "crossed the Tiber" and become Roman Catholics because they crave tradition in their worship services. The longer I spend at our megachurch, the more I understand that. However, I firmly believe that it is more important to be biblical than traditional. There is a part of me that wishes I didn't have to fight my mom so much about Catholicism. I wish I could embrace the tradition, the beauty, the pageantry, etc. But as I read the Bible I just can't do it.

What I do think about is the incredible murals painted on the ceiling of my mom's childhood church of St. Procop. I did a bit of digging and found that you can take a virtual tour of the windows and see one of the ceiling murals. St. Stanislaus is another beautiful church, but in the Gothic style. Going to Mass there makes you feel connected to something that has existed for centuries.

I've also had a sense of that from reading through my new Bible atlas and looking through the photos in it. So much art is based on Bible stories because they were so important to the artists. It's great to look at works of art like the windows at St. Procop and think about the stories they represent.

I understand the reason behind the austere buildings used by most Protestants. I understand that most people in America can read and they don't need a series of stained-glass windows to tell the gospel story. However, I also wonder if maybe there is something to be said for some of that today. It's pretty incredible to look at the baptistry in Florence and realize that Michaelangelo was baptized there as an infant. We just don't have stuff like that in America. Maybe it's something that we can work on. The question is -- do enough people care to work on it?