This Made Us Laugh!

This article really made Mary Ann and I laugh, and blessed us as well. Enjoy!

Pastors, Quit Trying to be Perfect and Let Jesus Love You

Another's Job

But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, "No! But there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles."   1 Sam 8:19-20

In my reading through 1 Samuel I recently went through the time when the people of Israel cried out for a king that he might judge them and fight their battles for them. God gave them what they wanted, though it meant they were rejecting Him as their king and, it seems to me, trusting in man to do for them what God would have done for and through them.

I wonder how many times we seek another to do what we should be doing? I think that this is a real danger in Christian circles—especially organized "church." That may sound funny coming from a pastor, but I think that one of the greatest dangers of organized "church" is that it can, if not handled well, encourage the body of Christ (the true church) to pass its responsibilities on to a few instead of being the body of Christ in fullness.

I do not go so far as to reject organized religion—I believe that Acts and the epistles makes it clear the early church met both in large groups, and regularly from house to house. I believe that it is clear they joined their resources to meet local needs within the body, and to support needs out of their area within the body. I believe it is clear God appointed some within the local parts of the body to be elders and teachers and pastors within it. But . . . if leaders aren't careful they can consolidate things around themselves out of ignorance, or insecurity, or love of power, or ???

Ephesians makes it clear that leaders are given to equip the body for the work of ministry—to equip all the believers to do the work of God, not to do the work of God for them. Granted, if they are paid and full time, they have more time to do some things that someone working at another full time job might not have, but it is far too easy for the body to just say, regarding visiting others, or praying for others, or doing the stuff that holds a body together, "Well, that's the pastor's job. That's what he's paid for," or other similar things regarding church staff, or the organized church itself. But, the New Testament makes it clear, the body is only fully functioning when each person does its part and uses their unique gifts to knit the body together.

One change I have made recently in our services is that I've stopped asking who has a prayer request and started asking who wants to be prayed for (there's often a big difference). In the past I've found that we might get 10–15 prayer requests, and very few would be writing them down. Then I, as the pastor, would pray and we'd move on. I am sure some got prayed for during the week, but I don't know how many.

Now I am asking, "Who wants to be prayed for?" The Bible says the gates of hell won't prevail against the church, and we are all, as believers, the church, so we are starting to bang on the gates of hell on behalf of one another. I must admit, since I started this we are getting a lot fewer prayer requests, but I feel we are probably a lot closer to what we are supposed to be doing.

After people who want to be prayed for express their need, or the need of someone they want to be prayed for, we go in to a time of prayer, usually about five minutes. I re-read the requests and then ask that each person desiring to be prayed for has at least a couple people join with them—maybe someone who the Spirit nudged toward them, or someone who has faced a similar issue. Everyone is free to get up and join someone or stay in their seats, or come up to the cross, it is all up to them. Then, start praying in small groups, with and for the person or persons asking for it. When I feel it is time I'll go and close that, but not without saying, "If you are still in a group and you feel you need to keep praying keep doing so, even if it means you are praying through all of the worship time and through my teaching."

This is just one small step, but it seems to be a good one from my eyes. I, as the pastor, don't have any more access to God than another believer does. The body must be the body, each part doing its part, each part realizing that church leaders are simply their brothers and sisters, called to different positions and parts in the body, but not any more special, any more loved by God, or with any more access to God than them. We have to be so careful to equip ourselves and to not ask others to do what God has asked us to do. Only when the body is fully functioning as the body will the world truly see Jesus expressed through us.

God bless you all. As always, I'd love your thoughts.   —Erick

Fire Boring Preachers?

An August 8th post by Eryn Sun in The Christian Post naturally, as a pastor/teacher, caught my eye. It was called, "Why 'Boring' Preachers Should Be Fired." It talks about Christian theologian Carl Trueman and credits him with writing about how, "good preachers preaching on doctrine or 'the description of who God is and how he has acted' should never leave audiences feeling cold and indifferent" (and how elders should fire ones who consistently do). You would need to read the whole article to get all of what he is said to have said, and to be truly fair to the full picture he presents, but a few comments the author of this post attributes to him include:

1.  "The relationship between doctrine and worship in the structure of Paul’s letters allows us to infer that doctrine which does not lead to praise is not really true in the richest sense of the word" . . . "Doctrine which does not culminate in praise is not true doctrine" . . . "Teaching of doctrine and appropriate response to the same are inextricably tied together such that the former should really terminate in the latter."

2. “I was talking to a friend recently who told me of a Sunday school class on providence which he had attended. The presentation, while precise and correct at the level of formulation, left my friend cold. Nothing of the glory or the grace or the mercy or the patience of God had been conveyed in the presentation. There was nothing to call forth a response of praise and adoration.” The article also states that, "He clarified that this did not mean people should be swayed 'by aesthetics' or 'reader response' however. He just questioned a man who took 'the deep, mysterious and glorious things of God' and consistently turned them into a 'bland medium.' "

Naturally, this subject is something I reflected on, and I have a few thoughts about it. My thoughts are not all directly tied in to Mr. Trueman, but rather spawned by his. I have not read his original article, only the article about it, and I am not criticizing him at all, only sharing my reflections that the article birthed.

I wonder—what is the responsibility of a teacher? What is he accountable for? I would think that it would be an accurate presentation and exposition of the Word of God or subject that the Spirit of God led him to. If he picked a message from his own "good ideas" or because a denomination told him to then there is a strong chance that the Spirit is not leading it or anointing it. But, if he has prayed and sought the Lord and obeyed, then the Spirit will anoint it and he has done what he was called to do.

I wonder how Jesus would measure up to the standard of true doctrine being that which elicits praise in the audience? I, honestly, don't see a lot of that response coming from his words. We could say his audience was pre-Pentecost, but then Acts tells us a lot about the apostles being driven from cities for preaching (not praise coming). Of course, if this only refers to an audience of true, Spirit-filled believers then does the criticism find merit that true teaching should evoke praise? I am still unsure on this. What is the responsibility of the listener to be prepared for the teaching and to have his or her heart ready and his conscience cleansed. If the Spirit is grieved or quenched by him or her will a teaching cause praise to rise up?

I think that there is a danger (and a truth) in what Mr. Trueman brings up. Obviously, if a man is consistently unmoved by the glory of God and transmits that lack of emotion then there is a chance it will have an effect on the listener . . . but what a danger there is in putting the response of the listener on the back of the teacher as well. Might this not led to a pastor-centered church instead of a Christ-centered church? Might this bring about the situation where we follow a teacher and not the one the teacher points to? Might this standard subtly pull us into the realm of seeking out teachers who give our itching ears what they want to hear?

I think a key is that the Spirit alone can awaken a heart. If it is awakened or moved by the delivery of a man it is not going to be true. I have read that Jonathan Edwards delivered "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in a monotone and people clutched the pews in fear. Other preachers can preach in a great oratory and evoke an emotion of praise that doesn't last past the first person that cuts them off on the way home. And, what about the mix in the congregation? I can't tell you how many times the same teaching I have delivered has caused one to two people to nod off and had multiple people come up after and tell me how much it moved and affected them. I have had, in the same week, the criticism that the church was too "Pentecostal" (I don't know what that means) and that it wasn't Spirit-filled enough—same week! I have had people complain I go to long and others wish I went longer. I have had our church condemned, and praised, because we long to see those come to it who are broken, addicted, outcast, and rejected. So, what becomes the standard in these cases?

I think the answer has to lie in the simple question, "Did the teacher do what God asked them to do?" That is all they are responsible for, I believe. But, it is an interesting question and line of thought and I'd love to hear your comments. Obviously, as a pastor, I'm a little pre-biased. What do you think? What do you believe God's Word says a teacher's responsibility is? What would cause you to fire a preacher, and what wouldn't?