11.13How Do Christians Grow and Mature?
When people come to our church from other established (probably bigger) evangelical churches, they often come looking for a communal, real, authentic, missional life with Christ and a church body. They find our liturgical forms of worship refreshing at first. But sometimes, if they don’t GET what’s going on, they become disillusioned. Our sermons do not always exposit word for word what the Bible means and then package some applications to go home with and do and improve your Christian life. They proclaim Truth (the reality of Jesus as Lord) out of the Biblical text and ask us to obey, submit and live under the Lordship of Christ for this day, this week, this year. We do have group Bible study time at 9 a.m. (newly reinstituted teaching for an hour teaching the Scripture that we are preaching), but the service itself is a time of formation before and into the Word of God. It is not a time of learning information for the purpose of attaining a certain competence (don’t get me wrong, there’s an important place for studying and knowing The Bible). Different assumptions about “How People Grow in Christ” undergird how we gather as a people, and the discipleship processes that come forth from that.
There seem to be two different models of growing into Christ at work here. I would argue one is more modern, individualistic and particularly good for people who were raised in evangelicalism and liked it and have a character already formed into Christ (because of good Christian parenting) and therefore are less in need of Christian formation (or at least can get along without it). The other way recognizes the formational issues of growing up in post Christian-dom world. This way is built around a community (the speaking of truth in love- Eph 4: 15), growing together as a community (Eph 4:16) into Christ based upon the working of all of the gifts of Eph 4:11. I must adamantly assert that I don’t think the second way is any less committed to Scripture, the conversion of the lost into Christ’s salvation or the development of each believer in over and out of sin than the first way. The ways of understanding how Scripture, preaching and the Holy Spirit work together in the community and the individual’s sanctification are however different.
Matt Tebbe, one of our pastors, with the help of Geoff Holsclaw, another of our pastors, wrote up the difference like this. (I have edited a few of Matt’s words)
HOW DO CHRISTIANS GROW AND MATURE?
ONE WAY:
1. Strong, charismatic, decisive leadership
− emphasis on one person’s vision, dependent on personality and leadership skill of pastor, creates STRONG group identification among members
2. Lengthy, exhaustive, application-heavy teaching and preaching -
− emphasis on right belief leading to right behavior, problem in spiritual progress diagnosed as “wrong/bad/insufficient beliefs” (i.e. not enough information)
3. Community who will be “in your face” about issues, ideas, opinions, advice
− emphasis on not tolerating sin, speaking truth, issues tend to be black and white and approach others monolithicCan lead to:
− “like throwing gas on a fire” - can bring fast, initial growth, but over time Christians develop lack of character, discernment, and wisdom to sustain an abiding relationship with the Lord
− Leadership style undercuts development of listening, sensitivity, wisdom, and responsivenes to the Spirit
− Incredible numerical growth and brand loyalty to church
− Mature Christian = one who has answers to important questions, can articulate churches positions on issues, has demonstrated right living in certain areas of focus at churchANOTHER WAY:
1. Humble, mutually-submitted, empowering leadership
− emphasis on a togetherness of leadership, Spirit’s authority is not deposited in one person in the church, raising up and empowering others alongside leadership
2. Sermons proclaim the Word of God, the truth (the reality as it is under Christ’s Lordship) leading to
a response to the Holy Spirit by congregation in liturgy rather than an application “to-do” list
− emphasis on character formation, responding to Spirit’s conviction rather than Pastoral direction, and the mutual reinforcement of obedience and belief.
3. Community who will engage in dialogue, questions, and listening as a way of engaging with others
− emphasis on listening to what the Spirit is doing in another’s life, discerning what a person is ready to receive, issues tend to be complex and approach to others is contextualCan lead to:
− “duraflame log” - slow, steady, sustainable growth in maturity and wisdom as a Christian.
− People who learn how to listen to Spirit, think through issues with a worldview shaped by obedience to scripture, and care for others and respect their journey of faith
− Lower numbers and less brand loyalty
− on the downside, can lead to: abdication of pastoral leadership/authority (i.e. too hands off), congregation can interpret lack of directedness as being “soft on sin” or “not structured enough”
− Mature Christian = one who is a practiced listener - to scripture, the Spirit, one another - and responder, has an imagination and conceptual tools increasingly full of the Story of God, knowledge and understanding leads to humility, obedience, and compassion.
Have you experienced either one of these ways to how a Christian grows into Christ? Has Matt been fair in his characterizations, the weaknesses and strengths of each way? Have you noticed the same distinctions? Have you ever been in a community that operates under the second set of assumptions? What are your own experiences of growth in relation to the worship/discipleship practices of your church? Do these distinctions ring true for you?
Been through both to intensive degrees. The former did eventually short-circuit itself and left me fairly adrift ideologically. The latter was more effective as a formative, ground-up, kind of influence. Overall my experience between these two paradigms is that the latter is more effective and faithful to the politics of the gospel as long is it is embedded in a localized ecclesiology that doesn’t have a reactionary motive, that isn’t “shaped by its enemy.” So many emergent concepts are knee-jerks responses to the modern evangelical complex, and simply aren’t engaged in the historic wisdom of orthodoxy and early Chrisian practice. (They want to go old-school, but they rarely go old-school enough.)
It sounds like Matt has come close to describing early Christian formation, at least as I understand it in the first century. The focus on charismastic leadership (the good kind of charisma), proclamation rather than preaching, collective liturgical response, ethical formation through communal submission to the Spirit’s moral guidance. I would also toss in that much formation occured through the counter-cultural emphasis on giving, abandonment of class/race distinctions, and the centrality of the Lord’s Supper (all things that don’t happen in the first model he describes). “Lack of brand loyalty” is well put. Our emperor worship is just far less public.
Ultimately what makes the second model so attractive to me is that it already exists in history, in the early church and its embodiment of the topsy-turvey logic of I Corinthians. We don’t actually need Derrida to get there (not criticism of Matt, but others who have posed similar dichotomies). I guess this would lead me to describe the Mature Christian in the second model a bit differently. People with gifts and personalities that lean the direction of the descriptives he uses will certainly end up looking like that. And the awful joke could be made that in the first-century, the mature Christian was the martyred Christian (I will have to try that joke out at SBL some year). But maybe we could describe the Mature Christian in the second model like this: One who been sufficiently formed by the gospel that they naturally and unreservedly respond to the brokenness of the world through the cross - acting out Biblical thought forms like justice and reconcilation. They are aware that their “story” is now an extension of God’s Story that is embedded in the world through the local church. Basically, the Mature Christian in the second paradigm gets theodrama.
Sounds like you guys still have some wonderful discussions at LOV
November 13th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I have been guilty of using the first model, but over time have come to see the value of the second. If I could add two words to the definition of a mature Christian in the second model they would be “sacrificial service”. I know they are probably implied in humility and obedience, but I’ve learn that people don’t always get the implications we want them to get.
Will C.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Thanks David. I needed this blog post today. Sometimes, I wonder whether I’m on the right track. :-)The struggle between perceived success and failure is so real. The journey rediscovering authentic Christian discipleship is a long one.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:17 am
First, I want to say I really value this forum, David. This post is very thought proviking.
I understand (and have witnessed) the distinction Matt is trying to draw, but I don’t think his characterization is fair at all. I have no interest in attending a personality-driven practical-advice-giving, “in your face” church. But if we’re going to encourage the American Church to de-centralize leadership, to trust God with the fruit of our teaching and not try to engineer righteous living, and to value a safe space for dialog over a declaration of doctrine–if we’re going to encourage this, then we have to start by charitably engaging those we feel are in error, not by caricaturing them.
I can think of two additional risks to the second model Matt describes:
-core values of the community (listening, mission)are inconsistently articulated and applied
-community can be co-opted and mistreated by those who would seek to control through emotional manipulation
I’ve seen this happen, and I think we ought not to confuse humble leadership with weak leadership; leaders must constantly articulate, nourish and protect the commitment to togetherness and mutual submission.
But thinking further, I have more questions: what do we mean by “liturgy?” Surely it is more than a regular order of worship, for even the slickest personality-driven churches have a regular order.
It seems we are searching for spiritual formation that is not just instructive but transformational, yes? We want people to become good listeners to the Spirit, not just good listeners to the pastor. But the question that titles this post asks “How?” This is the big question for me: how can you lead someone who just wants to be told the answers to become someone who can and will listen for the Spirit? (says the commenter on the blog who just wants to be told the answers;-)
November 14th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Brother Matt,
Give us a positive description of the first option so we can genuinely compare them. The description of the first one makes no one want to join up; the glories of the second make everyone want to join up … and the fact is that most are in the first.
I’ve seen plenty of strong leaders who were also humble.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
hey all, this is geoff…the guy who collaborated with Matt on the above.
(the kicker for me is whether we want to build a church that is ‘right about things’ or ‘reconciled with each other’) Let me explain.
First of all, while they may be characterization, but sprang from actual conversation with actual people. So, maybe those people aren’t reflective of the whole spectrum. But someone recently told Matt that he doesn’t think he can learn about leadership from Matt because all Matt does is be humble and vulnerable, but not decisive and directive enough.
Second of all, these were basically written out on a napkin (not a systematic reflection on a typology).
But with that said…it was probably unfortunate that the two ways of leadership were contrasted with the firsts words being “strong” and “humble”, respectively. I truly believe that strong leadership can be done with humility and trust in God’s work.
The contrast is really with “decisive/directive” leadership (expressed through sermons which trickles down in the form of ‘ideas’ being really important, and the world being black and white), with “consensus/communal” leadership (expressed through sermons which trickles down in the form of ‘practices’ and the world being gray).
The first way leads to black/white Christians (just think of the ranting going both directions concerning the election), who I want a new Law (even if this is not the intention of the leaders). The second way hopefully leads to discerning Christian who live by the Spirit.
Another way of saying this is to ask if people are being trained to ‘receive’ the word/life of the Spirit (which is Christ) from leaders (who know/teach the truth), or whether they are being trained to discern the Spirit for themselves.
Of course, as with all things, the first option can (but doesn’t have to) lead to legalism; and the second way can (but doesn’t have to) lead to antinomism. But at this point in Evangelical history, I’m more willing to risk the second.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
also, for me, Derek Webb’s song “New Law” perfectly sums this up. The end is “Don’t be Afraid.” For me, the end of fear is what much of Evangelical practice centers around, but often end up not trust in God, but our own ideas/directives/applications/interpretations.
And again, the two ways mentioned above are not what the leaders of churches are trying/not trying to do, but what many people want so they can know how to live.
Song is here:
http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl73.gif
(vs. 1)
don’t teach me about politics and government
just tell me who to vote for
don’t teach me about truth and beauty
just label my music
don’t teach me how to live like a free man
just give me a new law
(pre-chorus)
i don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy
so just bring it down from the mountain to me
(chorus)
i want a new law
i want a new law
gimme that new law
(vs. 2)
don’t teach me about moderation and liberty
i prefer a shot of grape juice
don’t teach me about loving my enemies
don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit
just give me a new law
(pre-chorus/chorus)
(bridge)
what’s the use in trading a law you can never keep
for one you can that cannot get you anything
do not be afraid
do not be afraid
do not be afraid
November 14th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Hey all -
Matt here - the other pastor mentioned above…Thanks for the feedback – and sorry I’m a little “late” here - this is a bit weird because this above sketch emerged out of a few pastoral situations where we felt like people were “missing” what we were about…and we were/are trying to figure out why. Much of the disconnect comes from our inability to articulate clearly the “other way” we are calling people into…combined with how people hear what we say through different expectations and assumptions of leadership and Christian growth. So – all that to say – I guess this document wasn’t written necessarily for “fairness” or “balance” but as a working document to help us understand ourselves better and understand our weaknesses in communicating with others.
So – having said all that – thanks for your charity here! I completely agree that there is characterization here. And some of that is unfair to the “one way” (…but…see below) Open to suggestions about how to get at the first way without being unfair/uncharitable. Let me respond to a few of the comments:
Nate:
Your two other comments about potential weaknesses are spot on – how do you model humble, empowering leadership without advocating leadership? But – as to the language and descriptions I use – see below under Scot -
Scot:
I’ve also seen plenty of strong leaders who were also humble. It’s unfortunate that the sketch read as though they were opposites or mutually exclusive. But the language and descriptions used above is more or less (and some of the stuff above is verbatim from actual conversations i’ve had with people) how people in our church or who visit our church articulate what they want and what we don’t offer (i.e. “directive, decisive leadership that will get in my face and speak into my life” or “explain how to apply scripture to my life” or “resolve tension/ambiguity in the election,” etc.) - so – if it comes across as characterization…well…perhaps it is…but it’s what some people at least are saying.
One other thing – there is some bias under the first way above – there’s a reason why LOV is trying to do the “another way”!! But…the people i’ve heard would, by and large, see the top way as positive, and would use much of the same language and articulation that I have (again – much of that is verbatim) What this reveals is that you and I have much different assumptions about what is positive (or negative) than others…the people we’re trying to communicate with would read the first 3 above and say, “Yes!! That’s what we want!” But you and I read that and think, “who would want that? Why would anyone want that?” Fact is - many people do and they want it because they think it’s how they will grow in Christian maturity.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I don’t mean to play into scenario #1, but i have a feeling what is being described is my church… but a caricature of it. There are elements of truth to it… more than you probably know. But they aren’t necessary elements. Scot’s right… you’ve picked a particular church with a particular leader and then generalized from it. Even then, strong ? authoritarian.
Quick comments on the specific points of “Way #1″:
1. Obviously all leaders should be humble, and should view themselves first as servants (just blogged on that yesterday, actually). But vision-casting is huge. It does depend a lot on the primary ‘visionary’, but the real test of a good visionary is whether he can infect other leaders (and especially a team of leaders) with that vision so that they can implement it pastorally on a more grassroots level.
2. Feels like you’re confusing expository and topical preaching. Expository preachers tend to be long, where as topical (i.e. application-heavy) preachers tend to do quaint little homilies. Our pastor would be a hybrid between expository and topical, but always long, and usually pretty application heavy (that’s why i think you’re probably talking about him here).
3. I really think different leadership styles just gel with different types of people. Condescending leaders really rub me the wrong way… but there’s also something about a person who will just “tell it like he sees it”, even if it’s a bit off, because what you really need is your pride smacked down. I can sweet talk most pastors into thinking i’m a great guy and have my ducks in a row, even when a lot of garbage is festering under the surface. Along comes a guy who calls my bluff and instead of listening to my excuses, says, “Listen…” But not everyone is like me, and a more aggressive approach may just push them further from Christ.
Overall, Matt and Geoff, I have to say that your critiques are more accurate than not, given the caveats above. Other critical commenters have raised insightful points as well.
Blessings,
matt
November 15th, 2008 at 5:58 am
The closest thing I’ve experienced to the second list has been at the group home where I work. Even in the field of social work our group home program (where I am the social worker) is quite unique. New staff often have a hard time acclimating to the so-called gray areas and lack of structure.
Actually, there is more structure than one might think, though it isn’t necessarily hierarchical. It is relationship-based and more communal than abstract. For example, many group homes use a point system (behavior modification) whereby the residents lose points or gain points depending on positive or negative behavior. This inherently teaches them how to follow a somewhat artificial and abstract rule base, but not how to interact with real people in real situations and real places. A 17-year-old young man may be able to attend school in order to achieve a certain point status, but this is different than the one who is able to wrestle with the tension of living independently and completing (or not completing) his high school education. Well, anyway, it seems different to me.
Some of us, as we’ve gotten used to the pattern, like feeling the tension and uncertainty. It’s similar to the experience of being a Christian in a post-Christendom context. We (those specifically within the Christian tradition) recognize that beauty rests in our relationships, in our ability to trust, and our ability to discern His grace. All throughout we are required to walk, albeit slowly and with some pain, through the dark room of not-knowing; we move not by sight but by touch and feeling and faith. It is the mystery that invites us inside for a warm cup of coffee and then asks us to do the same.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Beloved,
Good to see you here, Matt.
I don’t really know how i can say this any clearer or more succinctly. I’ll just restate what i said in my first post: The words we use to describe #1 above come almost verbatim from conversations we’ve had with people who are dissatisfied with our church, or who don’t get what we are about. By and large the phrases and words we use in #1 are what people think they want - the words in #1 are meant, I believe, in a POSITIVE way by the people i’ve heard them from.
The only stuff i consciously added to under #1 was “issues tend to be black and white and approach others monolith(ally)” - of course, the “can lead to” section was our reflection as well…this doesn’t mean there isn’t caricature, but it may mean that there is caricature by those who AGREE with the first way above (and obviously by those who disagree was well). So - caricature by those who AGREE seems to be a: inevitable, b: ironic, and c: insightful…
All that being said…Your comments were substantive and really helpful. And your comment #3 is where we think we are with those who don’t get what we’re about. I do think (as i intimated to scot) that some people need different kinds of leadership, different kinds of community because of their personality, ways of dodging and posing (like you articulated…i can totally relate to that, brother), or ability to sweet talk. Still others have been battered by “leaders” in churches, their trust shattered, and power has been used not for their good, but to control, manipulate, or otherwise abuse them in some way. They - obviously - need another kind of leader…perhaps…
but…your other comments…on sermons and vision-casting are good…especially vision-casting as we wrestle with not being very univocal or intentional about this…
November 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Matt and Geoff — interesting comparison you’re pondering. As I read through it, I kept thinking that additional reflection might be beneficial on the tension between mutual submission to the Holy Spirit’s direction and submission to spiritual leaders whom the Holy Spirit has placed over us. This may be an especially important tension — not just in light of our transition into postmodernity, but in light of our culture’s radical commitment to individualism.
Blessings,
Chris Monroe
November 16th, 2008 at 1:28 am
gotcha, matt. i thought the observations were from conversations with people currently your church about their experiences with other churches. i see that you made that clear the first time; i just missed it. my bad.
i guess the overall question i have is, If you’re simply contrasting negative types of leaders with positive types, are you basically doing so in order to help those leaders who read the blog to lead in a more Christ-like way? Or are you trying to link those leadership types to specific ministry paradigms, and then contrast those paradigms? The two objectives are really quite different. I guess I was interpreting you as attempting the latter.
Re: your frustration that a number of people seem to be ‘not getting what you’re about’, forgive me for stating the obvious, but that probably means that your ‘visioneering’ needs some reinforcement.
I have to confess, trying to catalyze a home church movement in our last city for over a year, I found that egalitarian/grassroots leadership just didn’t cut it. Or maybe i’m just not that type of leader. Or maybe i just needed a lot of work on my visioneering capacity. I just know that in my experience, the ‘pulpit’ has proven to be an extraordinarily effective means of moving a group toward a common goal—if it’s used appropriately. that’s why i think preaching is so essential in being missional. It’s far from the totality of the task, but it’s a critical link.
i know you guys preach at the Vine, but for those of you considering (committing to?) ’seeding new missional communities’, be prepared for the difficulties that accompany not having a ‘pulpit’. doing life together and mutual edification are essential, but they don’t galvanize faith communities for mission. strive to maximize both strong yet humble, visionary leadership and communal ‘body life’. most likely those will be coming from different leaders.
shalom,
matt
November 16th, 2008 at 2:12 am
I’ve found Jesus really helpful in forming the best method for discipleship. In the Great Commission (Mt. 28:18-20) he writes -
Make disciples = clear repeatable systematic process
Baptizing them = initiation into a new trinitarian community
Teaching them to obey = training (not just knowledge teaching!)
Everything I have commanded you = comprehensive
So what if we tried this - creating a clear, systematic, repeatable, comprehensive discipleship training process that happens in the context of authentic community?
I’ve served in 7 churches and have NEVER seen this tried or even heard about a group doing this. They always seem to leave large essential elements out. We’ve been applying this for 2 years now and its consistently changing lives like nothing I’ve ever been apart of.
Maybe the answer was sitting there in front of us all along.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
We do need to do better “visioneering” - but what we’re finding is that those who say they want #1 out of leaders, preaching, and community do NOT hear what we’re saying. They filter what we’re doing and and what they hear us saying through their own expectations and assumptions about how Christians grow and mature, and that leads to MAJOR DISCONNECT almost to the point of scratching one’s head and thinking, “how could you have heard THAT?”
This exercise, before it was posted on Fitch’s blog, grew out of a concern for us to articulate who we are, how we see maturity and growth happen, and how we do so together in a way that the people we want to reach could actually hear it! And not hear what we weren’t saying. So at its heart, what started as a 10 minute “jot down some things to help us communicate who we are better” and matriculated to a blog post…at its heart, this document is meant to increase our missional faithfulness - not to be 100% accurate or fair or even non-biased.
The issue that served as catalyst for this was talking past one another…and, as i track this post as it makes its way around the internet, that is STILL the issue…
thanks for all your feedback and comments -
Matt Tebbe
November 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Even though the title of the post is “how to Christians grow…”, there should have been a subtitle to the affect “what do you do if they don’t get it?”
It seems as if the leaders all come to the table seeing that path ‘A’ is not the way to go. Therefore path ‘B’ is a good alternative to try. But when folks come along without already being at that same place there is a disconnect because they are asking questions that the leaders didn’t because they started further down the road. What do you do?
Have you tried as you described in “Another Way” to 1) mutually discern the spirit without any predetermined outcome, 2) preach the Word of God on the theme of discipleship/(leadership too), and 3) engage in dialogue to see where each other is coming from.
Either that or draw a dividing line saying we are taking path B at some level and then directing that this is the way it is, get on board… vision, right belief, in your face, and all that stuff.
Ecclesiology is messy… good luck!
November 17th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
No comment per se, just to agree that the alternative (2) track is rare. Part of the reason for this is that we aren’t going to argue people into this insight.. we are going to have to show them the way. And that means finding a few who are willing to try it so that we can become it together. btw, reading in Newbigin lately and he writes, (paragraph edited)
“Interpersonal relatedness belongs to the very being of God. Therefore there can be no salvation for human beings except in relatedness…
“The biblical insistence that God’s universal purpose of salvation is accomplished through the choosing of particular people arises from this fundamental insight concerning human nature. If each human being is to be ultimately understood as an independent spiritual monad, then salvation could only be through an action directed impartially to each and all. But if the truly human is the shared reality of mutual and collective responsibility that the Bible envisages, then salvation must be an action that binds us together and restores for us the true mutual relation to each other and to the world of nature. This means that the gift of salvation would be bound up with our openness to each other… ”
November 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Oh.. one more.. I've been pestering everyone with this one
I wonder whether our renewed discovery of the little shorthand.. Christology -> mission -> ecclesiology is actually hindering us. I suspect that when we drop this piece into our western context we read it through a Cartesian lens. So.. Christ is one, formation is into Christ, therefore formation is an individual enterprise and an individual outcome. I'm convinced we need to begin with a explicit Trinitarian foundation, as Newbigin above (which was page 70 "The Open Secret.")
November 18th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
While I understand how such a comparison might spring to mind, I find both models lacking. In reality, I feel that this is a false choice. Notice that both lists start with some kind of leader. It is true that God has ordained leadership in the church for the building up of the body. (Eph 4:11-16) Nevertheless, the Bible is equally clear that spiritual maturity comes from the indwelling work of God the Holy Spirit, not the sole efforts of a “spiritual director” if I may borrow the words of the “spiritual formation” movement.
The first model, in particular, is a straw man. It is not a given that people will be “in your face” unless perhaps you are in open sin, which should be confronted. Neither is it a given that all things are black and white (read Romans 14) or that sinful behavior is the result of “insufficient information.” Most of the time we sin simply because we are sinful.
What is lacking in both of these models is a commitment to the clarity of the Scriptures. This doesn’t mean that all passages are equally clear, nor that there cannot be disagreements between fellow believers of good faith. What it does mean is that the main idea that a passage is presenting is clear enough for everyone to understand. I might not know who the Sons of God are in Gen 6 or what the Nephilim were, but I do know that the world was filled with violence and God’s heart was filled with pain. That’s why he decided to destroy the world.
Ultimately, the two choices above shift the responsibility of individual growth from the individual to the “leader” and neither takes into account the work of God the Holy Spirit through his (clear) Word.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Bruce,
Come on …
You’re mighty sure that growth is an individual process? Yet the Pauline epistles are clear that growth is a communal process equally dependent upon the work of the Holy Spirit as He manifests His work through one another in the gifts. I am sure the Spirit works in individuals, yet it is mediated through the Body. The Eph 4 chapter you cited is evidence no. 1. But then this flows tnroughout the entire NT corpus, see that even Peter when they discern the course of the church among the Gentiles seek the Spirit together in applying Scriptyure. Look at 1 Cor 12, etc. In fact every letter of the epistles is addressed to the corporate body as a whole.
So I find your indightment “What is lacking in both of these models is a commitment to the clarity of the Scriptures” to be something applicable to your self as wel eh?
January 20th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
What a great post and discussion. Thanks for your additional comments, too. I felt my heart kind of leap reading the comments as we have had the same questions asked of us. Part of our struggle as a church is that we emerged from a demographic, not a neighborhood, and so there is an inherent inorganic quality to what we are trying to do. Discipleship has been a tough go for us, in part because we have not done an adequate enough job of explaining clearly just this vision, and so the things we have done have been threatening I think, to a number of people for whom it is difficult to imagine a non-ceo run church. I remain forever indebted to The Great Giveaway (and Hauerwas
) so, thanks on a Monday.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
There is no question that Eph 4 show God’s normal plan for the church as a body. The gifted men are to prepare God’s people for works of service. But as I understood the question, it wasn’t about the church as a body but about the individual.
You might respond by saying that the church is made up of individuals. Therefore, what is true of the church is also true of the individual. But that is a leap in logic. Individuals can (and do) grow when the church around them is stagnant. Likewise, the church can (and does) grow spiritual even when some of the body chooses to remain carnal (fleshy).
It should also be noted that whatever it is that causes Christian growth must be true of all believers at all times. If this weren’t true, we would be saying that God placed some into the body but didn’t give them what they needed to grow spiritually. By this standard, must of what we think is necessary really isn’t.
For example, I believe that God uses his Word to help the individual believer to grow. But what of the believer in the middle ages who was illiterate and didn’t have a copy of the Scriptures. Was he condemned to immaturity?
Or what of of the slave on a sugar plantation in the Virgin Islands? There was no opportunity for solitude or “quite time.” Every aspect of his life was ordered and controlled. Only as he lay on his bed exhausted and sick at night could he come close to solitude.
The only avenue of growth that has been available to all believers at all times is the indwelling Holy Spirit and communion with the Godhead through prayer. This is very individual. While I praise God for the church, the visible bride of Christ gets blamed for much that isn’t her fault.
God will judge each of us individually. I doubt he will accept as an excuse that “your visible body made me do it.” Growth is aided by the church in the best of circumstances, but growth remains an individual responsibility.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 am
i dont know much about investing yet, good info
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 am