If you missed our discussion on the Foreword it is here. Also, I might mention that the entire point of having an online discussion is to…wait for it…DISCUSS!!! That means that it could be a good idea to write some comments on the blog. I know its scary; but God is powerful. You can do it. If you have yet to buy the book you can do so for only $8.99 here.

Quick Summary:

Before you start building something it is vital that you know exactly what you are building. Because the church is not a Fortune 500 club or just another social gathering it is important that we know what a healthy church is supposed to look like; there is no secular model from which we can take our cues.

What is a local church? Dever gives a few pointers. 1) It is a corporate display of His glory and wisdom, both to unbelievers and to unseen spiritual powers. 2) we are a corporate dwelling place for God’s Spirit, the organic body of Christ in which He magnifies His glory. Summary definition: The church is God’s vehicle for displaying His glory to His creation. (26)

Furthermore, the church is unique because of her message; namely, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And therefore, the distinguishing marks of a church are the “right preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the biblical ordinances that dramatize it. (26)” The church then is God-centered and outward-looking. It is a ministry of magnification where “we are building a corporate, organic structure that will accurately magnify God’s glory and faithfully communicate His Gospel.” Jesus is the One who is ultimately building His church.

Now that we know what a healthy church is we have to ask, “how do you build it?” There are numerous options and diverse answers to that question throughout evangelicalism. Dever gives a four quick points to help govern the relationship between the Gospel and the method of its ministers:

1. Theology drives method
2. God’s methods determine ours
3. The Gospel both enables and informs our participation in God’s purposes
4. Faithfulness to the Gospel must be our measure of success, not results

Quotables:

“No matter how beautiful the facade, the structure will crumble if we build on a sandy foundation or with shoddy materials.” (25)

“Ignoring God’s plan for the church and replacing it with your own will ensure the eternal futility of your work.” (25)

“Our power is in our unique message—The Gospel—not in our innovations.” (27)

Questions:

How would you answer the question, “What is a local church”? Do you like Dever’s summary definition?

These are Dever’s:

What’s driving your church—the content of the message, or the uniqueness of the presentation?

Is your ministry method driven by biblical theology, or by what works?

Do you measure success by results, or by faithfulness to God’s Word?

I was having a tough time figuring out what to write today.  Thankfully a discussion at Abraham Piper’s blog 22 Words sparked some thought.  Recently some dear brothers had a rap concert at Bethlehem Baptist Church.  Abraham’s thought was—Amen, now lets get a metal band.  Then, Frank Turk (of Pyromaniac fame) entered the discussion with this:

No. No to the first half, and no to the second half. Liberty is one thing, and vulgar abuse of liberty (which is not necessarily hinged on vulgar language — only vulgar materialism) is another.

Just no. There should be no belly dancing in church, either; no clowns; no slide whistles; no fireworks or sparklers. Some things are not meant for worship, and we should just face facts.

I've heard this discussion before.  Awhile back I had this discussion with a group of brothers.  Initially their comment was that there are some forms of music that are simply too pagan in origin and are not redeemable; like rap, metal, and other uncomfortable forms of music.

I have a few students (actually former students) that I love like my own sons.  They are in a metal band.  I say that just so you know.  Also, I am not a huge fan of metal music (especially the screamo kind—which my former students band is).  My biggest problem is an inability to hear the words.  Yet, I also know that some that listen end up getting the words and singing along with the bands they love. 

Now that you know that, let’s move on to the discussion.  Should there be rap and metal music in a church service?  Is there a style of music that is inherently evil or worldly? 

My initial response to Frank was simply this:

Rap or metal is not the same as belly dancing, clowns, slide whistles, fireworks, or sparklers. You are right that some things are not meant for worship…but can you really find me a text that says that the form of music such as rap or metal for that matter can not be used for worship through song?

God has created us with a ton of diversity, and he is redeeming people from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language.  People of different cultures have different forms of music.  What may seem evil to one culture is the common expression of another culture.  Deep drum beats are typical in African culture—but to someone in the Deep South it signifies gangsta rap. 

My take is that certain expressions can be very helpful within a worship setting.  Rap tends to make you feel like it’s subject is amazing.  The beats just confirm the awesomeness of the subject being rapped about.  There is some Christian music…I won’t mention any names…T-Bone that seem to use this to display how amazing they are for being Christians.  Kind of like a “eat that world…see Christians are amazing”.  But other rappers like Flame, Lecrae, those from Reach Records featured at Bethlehem use this genre to say Jesus is absolutely amazing.  It’s worship. 

Now think about metal music.  Metal music (especially screamo) is a good genre for displaying angst, struggle, and explosions.  It can be used to say I’m in pain.  It can be used to buck the authorities.  It can be used to curse God.  It can be used to generate an unholy expression for anger.  But it can also be a cry out to God that says, “I’m in pain God”.  It can be used to say to God “I hate this sin”.  It can be used by God to passionately express dedication.  It can be used to musically symbolize a violent casting off of the world.  It can be used to worship. 

Therefore, lets embrace all styles of music provided that everything within the song (music and lyrics) are centered around exalting God and His beautiful Gospel.

Who do I credit for this one?  JT, links to Tony Reinke, who quotes David Powlison: 3 Questions to Spark Substantive Conversation with Your Spouse. 

Josh Harris asks a very important question.  Should we use Twitter in church?  Piper also weighs in.  Also Richard Clark give us an Ecclesiology of Twitter

The next installment of Reading the Classics Together at Challies’ blog will be The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment.  If you’ve never read this book I’d suggest buying it and joining the conversation. 

JT plugs a new album from Voice: A Theist.  I’ve heard good stuff so far…but am personally unfamiliar.  Rhapsody is yet to carry his music. 

Great article by Challies on confession. 

I’m not sure what my Arminian brothers think of this but you’ve got to respect a guy rapping about Particular Redemption:  (HT: John)

Dr. Moore discusses the “Pro-Life Majority”

I liked this:

“Ultimately all that will be there in the new, redeemed creation will be there  because of the cross.  And conversely, all that will not be there (suffering, tears, sin, Satan, sickness, oppression, corruption, decay and death) will not be there because they will have been defeated and destroyed by the cross.  That is the length, breadth, height and depth of God’s idea of redemption.  It is exceedingly good news.  It is the font of all our mission.

So it is my passionate conviction that holistic mission must have a holistic theology of the cross.  That includes the conviction that the cross must be as a central to our social engagement as it is to our evangelism.  There is no other power, no other resource, no other name through which we can offer the whole Gospel to the whole person and to the whole world than Jesus Christ crucified and risen.”  (Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God, pages 315-316)

Wow.  I mean seriously.  Wow.  How dare we center our life and mission around anything but the Cross.

A couple of years ago I read Mark Dever and Paul Alexander’s excellent book The Deliberate Church.  Recently a friend of mine as well as a couple other people have made mention of this book.  I thought it would be helpful to journey through this book with a few other believers.   It has been awhile since I read it and could certainly use other believers to think through some of these issues—especially others from different churches.  I will attempt to summarize each chapter (so maybe those that are not reading the book can still follow along) and then ask a few questions that we can discuss in the comments. 

If you have not bought this book yet, you really should.  It is only $8.99.

Quick Summary:

Dever wonders ‘why did you buy this book’?  Accident, discouraged, wanting to make an impact, disillusioned, or looking for new life in your church (the next great thing)?  Regardless of the reason for your purchase (or following along with us as we read through it) it is important to know from the beginning what this book is not.  It is not new, it is not a program, and it is not a quick fix.  This book is not about innovation it is about biblical faithfulness.

Dever defines the purpose simply as this: “To be deliberate about treating the biblical Gospel as that which feeds the church’s growth, drives its progress, and governs every aspect of the church’s corporate life and leadership.” (21) 

The foreword is closed out by asking a very important question:  Is it replicable?  Thankfully, it is absolutely replicable.  It is important as well to catch what Dever says on page 23, “[these] are not intended to be taken as either exhaustive or exclusive, but simply as an attempt to revive a warm conversation about how we feed, lead, and protect the flock of God.”  It will take patience and it depends on the sovereignty of God.  The goal is faithfulness. 

Quotables:

“Healthy growth takes time, prayer, hard work, patience and perseverance.”  (20)

“Our goal isn’t to see how innovative we can be.  Our goal is to see how faithful we can be.”  (21)

“…human method has to remain plain, or else it will naturally supplant the Gospel’s rightful role…the Gospel is cast in bold relief against the backdrop of our own admitted weakness.”  (22)

Questions:

• So why did you buy this book?  Or why do you want to discuss it? 
• What do you think of this statement: “When the Gospel enjoys functional centrality, the church gains traction in the culture…”?
• This one is from the book:  “Does the Gospel enjoy functional centrality in your church?  Why or why not?  Are there ways in which your current model of ministry might siphon off the glory of the Gospel for itself?  How so? 
• What other thoughts and questions do you have?

Last time we discussed the three different types of cultural engagement.  This time we will look at the stick-shaker.  Remember last time we defined the stick-shaker as the one who looks at the problems of the world shakes a stick at them, rebukes them, rallies the troops to pick up their sticks, and hopes that by enough stick-shaking the problems will go away.  Today we will consider what the stick-shaker gets right and where I believe the stick-shaker turns from the Bible. 

The stick-shaker is correct that worldliness is a major problem.  When the world infiltrates the church you have major problems (see Corinth).  We are told by the apostle John not to “love the world or the things in the world.  If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 

There is also an element of engagement that the stick-shaker does get right.  In Ephesians 5:11 we are told to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead to expose them.”  Sometimes the way that we are to engage is by loving rebuke.  So there are some things that stick-shakers get right and there are areas where we are indebted to their faithfulness to the holiness of the gospel.  But there are also serious problems with a stick-shakers view of engagement.

The fundamental error of the stick-shaker can be seen in a quote by JC Ryle’s book Holiness.  By no means am I accusing JC Ryle of being a stick-shaker.  These words, I think, meant something different in his day.  However, this quote will serve to show the underlying mindset of the stick-shaker:

[There] are [those] who are always trying to keep in with the world.  They are ingenious in discovering reasons for not separating decidedly, and in framing plausible excuses for attending questionable amusements, and keeping up questionable friendships.  One day you are told of their attending a Bible reading; the next day perhaps you hear of their going to a ball.  One day they fast, or go to the Lords’ table and receive the sacrament; another day they go to the racecourse in the morning, and the opera at night.  One day they are almost in hysterics under a sermon of some sensational preacher; another day they are weeping over some novel.  They are constantly laboring to persuade themselves that to mix a little with worldly people on their own ground does good.  Yet in their case it is very clear they do not good, and only get harm.

The problem with what Ryle is saying is that there is nothing innately wrong with a ball, watching horses go around a track, opera, or weeping at a novel.  Can these things become worldly and sinful?  You bet.  But can you enjoy an opera, read a novel, watch race horses, or enjoy a ball and it not be sinful?  Can Jesus go to a wedding party?  Where Ryle errs on this point is that he creates a needless dichotomy between sacred and secular. 

This needless dichotomy is the fundamental error with stick shakers.   And because of this they will defend their position with a great amount of vigor; after all, they are defending the sacred against the secular—God against the world.  The problem, though, is that the “world” that John is referring to is not the opera or great works of fiction.  The “world” that John is referring to is the God-hating mindset of secular man.  As D.A. Carson points out for John the world, “is not the universe, but the created order (especially of human beings and human affairs) in rebellion against its Maker.”

Furthermore, you do not see this type of cultural engagement with Jesus.  His sharp rebukes were often reserved for the religious elite.  Prostitutes, tax collectors, and society’s outcast often were given grace.  The problem with the stick-shaker is that they  create an “us v. them” mentality and often they feel more holy because they are not like the world.  I like what Paul Tripp says, “Whenever you believe that the evil outside of you is greater than the evil inside you, a heartfelt pursuit of Christ will be replaced by a zealous fighting of the “evil” around you.” 

If you are a stick-shaker that refuses to get your hands dirty and really incarnate the love of Jesus into other people’s lives then you need to come to grips with the sin in your own heart.  The reason for you disengagement is probably a combination of fear and pride.  So, realize that your greatest enemy is not the person across the street that is in love with world; your greatest enemy is indwelling sin.  Realize that the only hope that you have is the same hope that your neighbor has—the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Rather than engaging your neighbor with picket signs engage him with the love of the gospel.

To be continued…

A [rooster] was once strutting up and down the farmyard among the hens when suddenly he espied something shinning amid the straw. "Ho! ho!" quoth he, "that's for me," and soon rooted it out from beneath the straw. What did it turn out to be but a Pearl that by some chance had been lost in the yard? "You may be a treasure," quoth Master [Rooster], "to men that prize you, but for me I would rather have a single barley-corn than a peck of pearls." Precious things are for those that can prize them.    From Aesop’s Fables

Is this fable not the story of the unbeliever and the life-long struggle of the believer?  Christ is indeed the pearl of great price and yet we so often desire a “single barley-corn” rather than a “peck of pearls”.  The rooster’s problem is the same as ours; he is living for food which perishes and neglecting the greater treasure. 

Lord, give us hearts to treasure that which is truly treasure.  Give us the faith of Moses that chose to endure suffering for the sake of Christ rather than the fleeting pleasures of sin.  Remove our hearts of stone that can stare at beauty and desire bread for today rather than bread which endures forever.