Get your gloves: we need to keep planting

What is it with evangelicals and their children!!

They want children in the service, children at home being educated, children's quality time, father and children's time, mother and children's time, children and children's time—STOP ...

I don't want an adults only church—I love my children—Jesus loved children too—but nowhere does it say everything has to be for them, about them or suitable for them. I want to say ‘Get a life’—send them to school—send them out to Sunday school. We can have them mornings before school, after school, evenings, Saturdays and most of Sundays, but I won't say that because then I am as bad as the rest, so instead I will say nothing—oops, too late.

(Anonymous evangelical who is too scared to give a name, but glad that neither my opinion or David Gibbs will stop us or our children getting into heaven!)

Name withheld (10/02/2010)

It seems that Steve Cree may have made some valuable ‘management’ observations other than theological ones. The classic business misjudgement is to confuse structure for strategy (or blame it for under performance). The assumption is ‘if we change the structure, the strategy outcomes are more likely to be achieved’. While it can be true that bad structure can inhibit good execution of strategy, the reverse is rarely the case. It is the right people doing the right things in the right way that actually makes stuff happen—usually within any type of structure. In business, a number of different structures can achieve exactly the same outcome. In the commercial world, structure (government) is important but is not the holy grail; it is not the strategy driver.

Effective flexibility usually happens within the structure not by ignoring it. It is the struggling manager who primarily focuses on changing structure to get the job done—often because it is the easier thing to do than the actual tougher thing that needs doing. It's often the most visible yet unnecessary change. In industry, the structure is frequently formed to support the type of activities and team. It is a reflection of the purpose, not the cause of the output. It then makes more sense, as the gospel mission is fixed, that a more common than not structure would reflect such a fixed mission imperative. But even a rigid structure is no leadership excuse for failure to deliver (speaking in a worldly sense).

The accepted Presbyterian system and understanding of New Testament church structure ought not, and does not, inhibit good execution of ministry strategy in seeking to achieve our common gospel mission. All the missional things discussed in Steve's article can happen (including fellow workers, etc.) without harming the orthodox Presbyterian understanding and application of local church government. It is only a problem when, as he warns, the structure becomes the focus and an end in itself.

It is not automatically obvious that 1 Timothy 5:17 proves that only some elders teach. It is simply saying some labour at it (their chief activity) while others don't labour at it (not their chief activity). Ensuring all are able to teach (even informally) seems to be a clear leadership control standard.

Continuing the business metaphor, a board can second anybody it chooses to help and advise it. Likewise, a session of elders can invite any fellow worker to attend meetings or parts of meetings regularly (albeit without gaining formal rights or responsibilities of an elder).

Steve Cree, has the leadership runs on the board in terms of ‘making the system work’. I am not convinced it is a new theology of church government that is needed to make it happen for others. I know he is not suggesting we form a new ‘Overseertarian’ Denomination.

(Ed: Wayne Richards is the General Manager of the Presbyterian Church in NSW.)

Wayne Richards of Surry Hills, NSW, AUS (10/02/2010)

Justin Moffatt comments that Brian McLaren's visit to Australia went by largely unnoticed in his circle. This was not the case in many other parts of Australia. My husband travelled from Darwin to Canberra to hear him (and others) speak, and he is not alone in travelling great distances to do so. This is not because he agrees with McLaren's philosophy/theology, but because he acknowledges his research in his field.

We need to be careful so as not to exclude ourselves from the right to engage in conversations, nor confirm others in their belief that all evangelicals are ignorant. I understand the argument that there is so much good knowledge out there, and that we should not waste our time reading rubbish or even material that is less than good, but I personally benefit from wrestling with texts. I have often learned more from engaging with material that I disagree with in part. Learning to discern is essential.

McLaren is one of many voices in the Emergent church. We even have some homegrown voices. One of the problems of the Emergent church (just like evangelical, liberal or progressive churches) is that it is largely undefined. This is something that postmoderns like McLaren delight in, causing great frustration to moderns. Right or wrong, this is an anxiety we are going to have to deal with.

Leeanne Zamagias of Sanderson, NT, AUS (10/02/2010)

I read Steve Cree's article on thinking missionally about church structures with a mixture of irritation and high praise. Strange bedfellows? Well, yes, but I can't help being irritated when people write as if matters of church order, which others have wrestled long over, have now been resolved by the author's latest contribution. This was compounded when he got into my ‘high praise’ section, but was using phrases like “We have acclaimed Paul as the great ‘missionary to the Gentiles’, but overlooked those who laboured at his side”. I was left wondering who were the ‘we’ being referred to here. Steve Cree and who? All Matthias readers? All Sydney Anglicans? All Protestants? Denominational and interdenominational missions have been pondering and practising the ‘fellow worker’ theme that Steve so excellently drew attention to for some years, as they have comprehended it under the all-purpose term ‘missionary’. But all strength to your arm, Steve; those of us who are itinerant or semi-itinerant workers, serving in teams as fellow workers are always encouraged when our place in the New Testament ministry is recognized, rather than viewed as a role that seems to work but that is not quite biblical because it doesn't seem to fit into the eldership/overseer/deacon categories. Some more attention to the ministry of evangelist would be welcome next time Steve puts pen to paper.

Paul Morris of Rose Bay, NSW, AUS (17/02/2010)

Why did Steve Cree feel the need to spend three pages attempting to diminish the importance of elders in the governance of the local church before his worthwhile observations and excellent concluding thoughts on fellow workers? To suggest that there is no pattern of church leadership established in Acts and the Epistles is ludicrous. Quite simply, Paul specifically appointed elders in all the churches he had responsibility for, and gave specific instruction (to Timothy and Titus) on the abilities, character traits and ethical standards required for these leaders. Presumably this was because it is God's chosen way for his church to execute its mission, which is also more specifically described than “the gospel” as “[making] disciples of all nations, baptizing them … [and] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20).

Several cases of poor interpretation are used to support Cree's opening tirade. Firstly he suggests that Luke doesn't describe “elders” in Acts 11:30 because people would assume he means the same thing as in Luke 22:66. However in Luke, he does describe what the elders were: “both the chief priests and teachers of the law” (Luke 22:66 NIV), and this is not going to be the composition of a Christian eldership. Secondly, Cree argues that elder/presbuteros and overseer/episkopos are not interchangeable, but that ‘overseer’ is a subset of the general term ‘elder’. Sorry, but I just don't think the passages identified read that way. If anything, the specific title “elder” is used first, then the more general term for the function “overseer” later.

Eldership is not mentioned along with gifts because it is not a gift; it is a role. Elders will have a variety of gifts, which will include teaching the word. Nothing limits the range of gifts or other ministries that the elders may exercise; likewise, nothing limits the range of gifts or ministries that any non-elder may exercise, except the character standards and reputation identified for leadership roles of elders or deacons. Paul stresses specific requirements for elders and deacons because they are appointed positions within a local church structure.

Perhaps leadership by a plurality of godly elders with a mandate to teach God's word, shepherd the flock and protect sound doctrine is the best foundation for team-based gospel ministry from a local church?

Andrew Hackett of Normanhurst, NSW, AUS (17/02/2010)

It is inevitable for Australian Christianity to be caught up in the postmodern flight from authority. In our churches, there is a growing trend to undermine the authority of tradition, to see dogma as inflexible, and to adhere to the widespread belief that church structures and liturgy need to be revised.

While I am not suggesting Reverend Cree would fully subscribe to the above, in his article in The Briefing (#376/7 Jan/Feb 2010), in the course of his contemporary re-examination of the role of office bearers in the Acts of the Apostles, he is nevertheless, I believe, attempting to shift the debate in that direction.

There is a growing number of younger generation ministers who are impatient with the constraints that they perceive to be imposed by existing church structures.

In the Presbyterian Church (Cree is a Presbyterian), the session (the governing body of ruling and teaching elders in a local congregation) makes decisions by majority vote. The minister or teaching elder has to convince enough elders for a decision to be made. The plurality of elders ensures decisions are made more carefully and after consideration of a number of points of view.

This limits what a minister can achieve if he doesn’t have the mandate of the session. There is good reason for this: ministers come and go. They can make a total mess of a church. If they do, unlike the real world of work, there are rarely any consequences for failure; the minister just moves on to try somewhere else, and the elders and faithful members of the congregation are left to pick up the pieces.

The designation ‘fellow worker’ will encourage the view that the ministry, as currently operated, is a ‘post apostolic strategy’ (Reno), but in reality, this will lead to something quite different. Without checks and balances, it is much easier for an ambitious leader to get control of the church and in the end, be answerable to no-one but himself, like some of the present pentecostal leaders in this country who unashamedly claim divine authority for their actions.

The Acts of the Apostles is about evolving church planting and growth. If we are to see it as a blueprint for the church today, we need, among other things, to be getting totally out of real estate. This means jettisoning not only our traditional church structures, designed as centres of worship, but also our modern church ‘television studios’, designed as centres of entertainment.

The fact that Stephen and Philip went from a diaconate-type ministry to later become preachers and evangelists doesn’t undermine our use of the office of deacon today. Some deacons in the church, in time, have gone on to be ministers and preaching elders; nothing in the church structure inhibits or prohibits this development.

The main thrust of the article suggests that for modern church planting to be successful, we need more flexible ministerial structures. The facts say otherwise. Rev David Cross is one of Australia’s most successful church planters. He established three Westminster Presbyterian Church plants in metropolitan Perth in the 1970s without needing to modify Presbyterian church structure in any way.

Furthermore, the church plants of Rev Cross were not characterized by what is expected of a Presbyterian church plant—domination by middle-class Anglo Saxon whites, significant numbers of the disaffected and church hoppers—but rather the congregations reflected the multicultural nature and social range of Australian society, and included a significant number of new converts to Christianity.

Kingdom-building can be done successfully using the existing church structures.

The problem in Australia is not the need to revise church structures and liturgy; it is the fact that we are the Laodicean Church. We are far too influenced by the spirit of the age—in particular, modern humanism, which includes pragmatic church growth theory. We are materially wealthy but spiritually bankrupt, and that is why the church is declining in the West.

Rev Derek Bound of Bellbird Park, QLD, AUS (29/03/2010)

I feel encouraged that the church structures article has sparked some interest among The Briefing readership, even within the New South Wales head office of my own denomination. Indeed, that particular response sparked for me a question by way of reply: does the New Testament in any way envisage the existence of such ‘denominational officials’? Presbyterians, for example, have historically been suspicious or, at the very least, cautious regarding the existence of any such super-structures beyond the local presbytery. It could be argued, of course, that such structures have arisen over time in order to help meet the demands of local gospel mission. We do well to ask as a matter of ongoing priority whether that is the function they are continuing to serve. That, indeed, is the kind of question I believe the biblical data demands that we ask about all of our church structures: do they serve gospel mission?

In this regard, I am glad Wayne Richards has recognized that I am not suggesting a new denominational structure—whether ‘Overseertarian’ or by any other name. Rather, I highlighted how peculiar it is that the matter of governance has won naming rights over our denominations at all. A new name is not the point. Nor is the point that we should simply replace one static blueprint of church government with another. Let me be clear: I am not advocating a new blueprint. I am asking a more fundamental question regarding the New Testament evidence. I am asking whether it presents a church government blueprint as such—of any description. We find principles. We find a teaching/serving pattern. Most of all, we find a mission—a thriving, organic relational mission. We find a dynamic mission, not a static blueprint. We find a flexibility to adapt to changing contexts.

Wayne is concerned that I have made ‘management’ observations rather than theological ones. The New Testament, however, knows no such divide between theology and management. It has a theology big enough to shape everything, including our management. And when we find that its theology has a mission heartbeat, we must organize ourselves for mission. We must not manage our churches simply for well-ordered maintenance or for well-documented decline, but for mission.

So while Wayne appears to echo my concern that structures not become ends in themselves, the thrust of his argument appears to be that since it is possible to have missionary strategies within our structures as they stand, let's just press on. This is being naive about the power of structures and their tendency to atrophy. It is often observed that movements become organizations, which in turn become memorials. It takes hard work and fresh thinking to resist the pull of maintenance mode and to restore mission mode.

This maintenance mindset is evidenced by Wayne's classic theological misjudgement of reading our denominational structures into the biblical evidence, rather than allowing the evidence to critique our denominational practice. This is exhibited by his treatment of 1 Timothy 5:17, where he is concerned that my interpretation of the verse is not “automatically obvious”. True, observation of the context in the letter is required. The overseer is called to teach (1 Tim 3:2), and the deacon is called to serve (1 Tim 3:10). 1 Tim 5:17 then makes a distinction between elder-types. The distinction is contained in the phrase, “especially those who labor in preaching and teaching”. Some elders teach, some don't. Overseers teach; deacons don't. ‘Elders’ is thus best understood as an overarching category for overseers and deacons (or even for Apostles; see 1 Peter 5:1). Note also to whom the letter to the Philippians is addressed (Phil 1:1). There is thus great freedom in how we organize—in how we manage ourselves—but let it be for mission. Mission is consistently Paul's burden.

The personified gifts of Ephesians 4:11-12 (apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers) are all word and mission-focused. Similarly, just as Paul has the ‘outsider’ in mind in his requirements for ‘office’ (1 Tim 3:7), the ‘unbeliever’ is kept firmly in view as he discusses the use of gifts in congregational life (1 Cor 14:23-24). The language varies—‘office’ or ‘gift’—but the missionary framework is constant.

And with the missionary in mind, let us return to 1Timothy. While we may go back and forward with interpretation and counter-interpretation concerning 1 Timothy 5:17 and the make-up of the elders in Ephesus, who have we forgotten? Timothy, the recipient of the letter—the one who is to “devote” himself to preaching and to teaching (1 Tim 4:13). What sort of elder is Timothy? I'm really not sure. He is told to do the work of an evangelist in 2 Timothy 4:5. Where would that fit into Presbyterian or other denominational structures? I'm not sure. But I am concerned that we may have seen the eclipse of a missionary mindset in our struggle to answer the question. The fade of the role of ‘evangelist’ in our terminology is unfortunate, as Paul Morris alluded to in his reply. And he is quite right to point out that ‘missionary’ and ‘fellow worker’ terminology has been long adopted by missionary organizations. Yet that is precisely my concern—that a false dichotomy has been drawn between what a mission organization is and what a church is. In short, a church is a mission organization. The church should be organized—for mission. Should we then form a new office of ‘evangelist’? Oops, I dropped back into blueprint thinking for a moment there. Timothy is one of those fellow workers who defies neat categorization within the blueprint mentality.

So let me return to my opening question regarding what place denominational officials have in the New Testament data. Again, I can't give a precise answer because the New Testament doesn't directly discuss them. If we are going to have denominational officials, they must certainly be servants of the local church mission, not masters. Yet the plain and painful experience regularly expressed by many of our missionaries (church ministers, elders, women's workers, youth workers, children's workers) is that the denominational structures often act more like a master than a servant. They often stifle rather than promote the local mission. This is unacceptable. The demands of mission in our current context requires a flexibility that doesn't just say “Press on; mission is still possible”. Many churches, for example, are making the transition to multiple staff not envisaged by denominational regulations. It is a model that resonates well with the fellow workers evidence of the New Testament letters, but not always neatly within our denominational regulations. If mission is our heartbeat as it is the New Testament's, the latter will have to catch up to the former, not the other way around.

Steve Cree of Wishart, QLD, AUS (31/03/2010)

When thinking about the church, I remind myself that the apostles—especially Paul—addressed the congregations as ‘saints’, the ‘called out’ ones, and the congregations the ecclesia—gathered ones. The purpose in gathering seems to receive instructions in the word, engage in fellowship, mutual support in the prayers and the sacraments. They also had to be warned against wolves in sheep's clothing.

The idea that the primary purpose of the church was mission seems to be at variance with the New Testament pattern. Mission resulted in churches rather than formed the principal agenda of these churches. The involvement of New Testament churches in outreach was, I think, in identifying appropriately gifted people to reach out to the lost (e.g. Paul and Barnabas sent out by the congregation at Antioch). Somehow down the centuries, we have delegated the congregations' function to missionary societies who have taken over this work of the church without being under its discipline. In the field of mission, we have relied largely on high-powered evangelists on the American model—from Charles Finney to Billy Graham and their successors. We have also relied heavily on growth via the Alpha model, over which there are many questions to be asked—for example, the presentation of the gospel in a non-challenging way. Is there anything more intensely challenging than the call to face up to the fact that we have nothing to commend ourselves before God?

I believe the local church's function is to be a witness rather than to be ‘mission-shaped’, as it is frequently described nowadays. If functioning properly, it will act as a body of people being Christian—not all of them necessarily being involved in religious activity. The Sermon on the Mount, 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4 should be what we are teaching our people to be, so that the evangelists can point to us and show in us the evidence of the gospel's power to change lives.

From this, you will gather that my starting point is different from Steve Cree's, and therefore my conclusions are not likely to be very much like his. In particular, I find it difficult to detect a single text or series of injunctions for church members to be engaged in mission other than as suggested above—except, of course, that in their homes and workplaces, the difference in their lifestyle will be something that is noticeable to their neighbours, and they must be ready at all times to give a reason for the hope that is in them.

I agree that denominations have inherent problems. To make them work, support staff for the administration needs to be recruited, and historically, clergy have felt that they ought to be in charge of the administration as well as in the teaching. Thus in the Church of England, the proliferation of clergy into middle management (deans and archdeacons) and top management (bishops) has had the effect, in some cases, of taking good men out of their primary calling into more management jobs. Over time, these managers are regarded not just as managers, but as spiritual leaders and overseers. This happens to a lesser extent in the Presbyterian and Methodist connexions.

It is quite clear that the primitive churches were connected, or regarded themselves as being connected, but there is no evidence known to me of an administrative connexion. Churches were adjudged to be in communion with others on the basis of their orthodoxy. They aimed to be part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and allied with others who could claim to be in the same tradition. They tended to use the word ‘catholicity’ as a synonym for orthodoxy.

With these differences from Steve Cree in my understanding of the church, its nature and function, the likelihood is that my views on the details of his view on denominational officers and, indeed, of the presbyter/overseer question are not likely to be helpful. I note that Steve makes the standard distinction between what used to be called ‘ruling elders’ and ‘teaching elders’, drawing his authority from 1 Timothy 5:17. This is a verse that was debated for a long time by the Westminster divines when they were putting the Westminster Confession together. It was common ground that ruling and teaching were separate functions, but they did not think, in the end, that 1 Timothy 5:17 was sufficiently clear for that to be shown as a prooftext. Interestingly enough, the Free Church of Scotland, which, to my knowledge, sticks most closely to the Confession, pays its parish ministers £17k a year and its professors £34K. Calvin seems to have regarded the double stipend as an unnecessary inducement to the work of the theologians, and railed against the Roman Catholic doctors who demanded to be paid much more than the parish priests.

But to go back to the original suggestion by Steve (that the word ‘presbyter’ covered both the overseer and the deacons), to my mind Acts 20 casts strong doubt upon this proposition. There, the elders were enjoined to take great heed to the flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers. They were further enjoined to teach the whole counsel of God and to warn of wolves in sheep's clothing. The appointment of deacons in 1 Timothy 3 made no requirement for the deacons to be gifted as teachers.

But I agree with Steve that although, if we have denominations, they will require administrators, and it is true that administrators, not only in the ecclesiastical world but in the world of business and commerce, soon tend to morph from servants to masters. We have found in our national health service, since the decision was made to appointment managers in hospitals, that they are now more influential and better paid then the consultants. Bureaucracy rules whenever an opening is given! When the same situation applies within the church, the tendency is for the administration to acquire ‘spiritual’ status.

Charles Walker of Beverly, UK (02/06/2010)

Phillip Jensen’s ‘Planter versus founders’ article Jan-Feb 2010, p. 20], oddly appears in the same volume as Connon O’Shea’s ‘From seed to flower: Reflections on church planting’ [pp. 16-19]. Connon sketches a picture of church planting in central-coast NSW whilst seemingly having only completed this task once since his training days. Phillip then appears to disparage the use of the term ‘church planting’ unless the ‘planter’ is a repeat performer, and explains that they must come to the battlefield with a different armoury.

This distinction seems to be more a matter of semantics. But semantics sometimes provide grounds for fruitful discussion in their own right. Let’s first look at this idea more closely.

Phillip argues that a person coming to the field with the intent of establishing a church, and staying on in that church to coordinate its growth and development, and to take a pastoral role, should be known as a church founder. Scripture argues, however, that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself is the Founder of the Church!

It is evident that He not only coordinates its growth and development, staying around ad infinitum to prosper and pastor, but that He also sustains it by His word, and is indeed married to it and serves it as the great Prophet, Priest, and King Bridegroom. This has been going on since the covenant of redemption, is evident in Eden, in the Church in the wilderness, and more prominently, in the context of Pentecost through to the present day. The Lord is all of Champion, Sustainer, and Provider, for everybody that is the Church today. What a Church Founder!

Moving forward, Phillip argues a case for different training dependent on the ultimate goal. If you wish to become a church planter then you will need skills in relationship management and the ability to work in a dynamic environment. Founders, on the other hand, should bring persistence, conventionalism, and … well … ‘some’ depth of theological understanding. [It is difficult to imagine a planter (or evangelist) bringing less than ‘some’ depth of theological understanding to the work!].

Scripture on the other hand points out that the Holy Spirit gifts different individuals with different abilities: some to teach, others to minister; some to console, others to evangelise; some to provide, others to counsel, and etc.

If there is a role in this area for education providers it seems more appropriate to thoroughly investigate and discuss the a) abilities of the applicant, b) peer review notes and letters of the sending group, and c) the manifestation of fruit in the applicant’s life. Armed with this knowledge the provider might then steer the candidate to the course that is most appropriate to their potential and God-given desires. This should be something of the standard screening, scrutiny, and counselling, that undergirds the application to enrolment process.

To bridge the gap between the needs of different ministries [planting, founding, and whatever] there are many approaches including extra-curricula activities, short courses, tailored workshops, seminars, sound scriptural mentoring, and etc.

Let us remember that it is the Lord that gives the increase; and that He will do so no matter what the odds, nor what the hurdles our feebleness may raise up against the progress of the Kingdom of Heaven.

In reading Connon’s story it is clear that he is young and motivated, and willing to expend great energy and effort to meet the needs of the people he serves. However, there does seem to be a little bias in his article. By way of example look at the top right paragraph on p. 17: ‘I, myself, I, I, I, I, I’. Just where is the Lord in all this? Is this really ‘your’ church, or is it the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ?

The article may well be directed at those seeking involvement in similar circumstances, but the weight of first person language minimises or denies the supernatural and providential work of God in the prospering and growth. Some time explaining how the Lord has prospered the work, and developed your ministry etc would have been very welcome. Notwithstanding the same Connon should be supported by the prayers of the saints as he struggles in that difficult, dynamic, and strenuous environment.

Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.

David Wood of Mount Waverley, VIC, AUS (24/08/2010)