Fellowship News Article

T H I S I S S T I L L J U S T A D R A F T

Two articles have gotten my attention recently in Fellowship News. The first is “A Missionary Mandate for the 21st Century” by Colby Weinhofer (Sept 2007 and Oct 2007) and the second was “Having Missional Impact” by Dave Gundrum (Dec 2007). Without restating what these brothers have already written, I’d like us all to continue the conversation our denomination needs to have about effective, longterm outreach to our spiritually dead neighbors.

Our Fantastic Message

I believe that the Church has a phenomenal message. What Jesus brought to humanity is a beautiful thing. Namely, that I the rebel against God have received mercy by a lovingly gracious Creator. In that mercy, God satisfied His wrath against me by punishing His one and only beloved Son, who is our Savior, Christ Jesus. Not only has He soothed His anger against me, but He has brought me into His family, put His Spirit in me, declared me righteous, and continually makes me more like Jesus until the day He takes me home to be with Him forever. What a truly fantastic and (in many ways) unbelievable message!


Let’s Get The Job Done

In many ways, the Church is like the Jamaican bobsled team that has found itself broken down only a few meters from the finish line. We, who alone in the world have a great and lasting message of hope from God to mankind, have only a few steps to go before we finish what Christ commissioned us to do.

While we have only a few steps to go worldwide, it seems that the Church is losing footing in areas that once were shored up. Europe, once the bastion of Christianity, has thousands of beautiful, empty church buildings. New England, once the home of the Great Awakening and her sequel, now is a very spiritually cold area. America, wherever you turn does not seem very Christian. While much of the missional conversation discourages us with the onslaught of terrible statistics, I would like to encourage, uplift, motivate, and otherwise stir up our spirits.

At last, our job is nearing completion. Let us not grow weary in well doing. Let us send out our finest and brightest to the uttermost in missionary service! Let us plant Bible Fellowship Churches where Christ’s light in a community is all but snuffed out. Let us talk with our neighbor about Jesus. Let us stop merely memorizing that verse and begin to live it when Jesus said “let your light so shine before men that they would see your good works and glorify Your Father who is in heaven!”

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

I am convinced that our hesitancy in outreach is all about the “how.” We know the “why” of outreach. We know the “what” of outreach. We need work on the “how” because we do not want to look like door-to-door salesmen or cult members and we do not want to sell Jesus short of all the majesty and glory that is due to His Name. So the “how” is important.

There is a two-pronged approach to effective outreach. First, there needs to be church-wide outreach activities. We need to run events that are both “safe” enough that unbelievers will come and “safe” enough that our people will invite outsiders in. These events ought to have some perceived-needs addressed. Financial seminars, sports ministries, support groups, soup kitchens, and countless other ministries are perceived-needs-based ministries that let a spiritually sick and dead community know that we care and want them to be made whole.

The other, equally important, prong of effective outreach is one-on-one discipleship. All of us need to know our neighbors. We need to care about our neighbors. When you hear them fighting, let them know you pray for them. When your kids are in soccer league together with theirs, sit with them at the game. Have them over for dinner, let them return the favor. Be with your neighbors. This is, after all, what the Almighty God did when He took on flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) with us. “You shall call His Name Immanuel which translated means ‘God with us.’” People want to know that we care. Don’t you like to feel cared for? The lost are no different than you, except for their eternal destination.

And now, let me offer a shameless plug. This October, your pastors are invited to attend the BFC Ministerial Convention. It is for everyone on ministry staff at your church. Our theme this year is “Reaching Your Jerusalem” in which we will answer the challenge of how we can fulfill Jesus’ commission of being His witnesses and making disciples of Him in our local communities. Make sure your pastors go.

As for all readers, pray about your level of involvement in the Great Commission. Pray that God would lay some soul upon your heart. Pray that God would stir in your church, our churches, and the Church Universal the burden to reach lost souls with the great message of hope that we hold within us.

Now more than ever, we, the Bible Fellowship Church, need to be “an expanding fellowship of churches united to make disciples of Jesus Christ.”

Is This Still the Case?

I have been working on redesigning our denomination's Historical Society website. The old one is BFCHistory.org ... the new one will be there, but I am testing it now at my church site here. So I am reformatting all the library items and came across an interesting paper written for the Bethlehem Globe Times newspaper by one of our pastors, W.S. Hottel, in 1915. My question for you as you read is: would you still say that this statement is true of the Bible Fellowship Church as W.S. declared it true of our former incarnation, the Mennonite Brethren in Christ Church. Listen to what he says:

So then, it is at once discernible that the name "Mennonite" has been adopted and is held to merely for the sake of distinction and historical continuance. With the Mennonite Brethren in Christ, it is no barrier to prevent the incoming of new light from God, by way of advance knowledge, because of a deeper and clearer insight in to Divine revelation. The Mennonite Brethren are not a church bound down to the traditions handed down from their forefathers, others than those which are in full and strict accordance with the Scriptures. They always welcome new light from God, upon his word, gladly following and obeying it. Their apparent narrowness is not Godward but manward; they holding with a firm and tenacious grip of faith to the Divine Authorship and Authenticity of the Scriptures. To them the Scriptures are the ground of faith, their creed, and also the rule of life. Whatever in word, principle and spirit the Scriptures enjoin, they hold it to be carried out and obeyed in every day life and practice. In short, they stand for the spiritual illumination of the mind, its transformation by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the truth, so that the principles of God's word are inwrought into the mind, will and character of man, so that those who really and heartily accept the divine "form of doctrine" became living epistles "known and read of all men."

Do we, the BFC, always have an ear open for God to grant some new light? Is ALL we have the Scriptures and them alone as our creed? Do we add immutable statements on top of God's Word -or- is it Scripture alone?

I'd love to hear our responses?

Emergent vs. Emerging

Symantics or Real Distinction?

I've heard both words floating around and I wondered if there was any difference. Mark Driscoll in this YouTube clip says they are different. He says that Emerging Church is the overall movement and there are lots of little groups in that movement. He says some are pockets are really conservative theologians trying to engage their culture (sound familiar BFC?) but he says there are others that are social gospel, liberal theologians hyped up on the new perspective on Paul (this group labels itself "Emergent").





Research on the Distinction

So I did some research to see who says what about each word.

Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones are high-ups in the Emergent Village, I watched this clip and Tony couldn't stop from saying "words like justice love and gospel mean the exact same thing. Justice IS Gospel, to work for justice to be actively engaged in God's justice in the world means to be gospel people." Clip below:




Enter the Modernists

SO then John MacArthur, very modern, anti-emerging pastor and author comes along and listens to the overall conversation of the emerging church. He isn't happy with it.




He, DA Carson, many many others in the modern Church rail against the emerging movement because they are concerned that the movement is a reincarnation of social gospel. These are men who grew up in churches that fought against liberalism and then became solidiers in the same battle and really won that battle. Now they see they old enemy rearing its head again. I like MacArthur, I really do. I think (especially if Driscoll is right) that MacArthur is in reality not against the emerging church (even though he says he is). Instead he is really against the emergent church.


Should We Wade In?!?

But the question remains: is emerging and emergent the same? Can a BFC Church or the BFC be part of a movement which has under the same large umbrella social gospel types. Just because emergent is a small group amidst a large umbrella of emerging... does it disqualify us from participation in the greater point? I said earlier, I don't count myself as part of the emerging movement. I'm closer than many of the brethren at the ministerial convention, but I'm not in yet. I'm headed that way slowly (so Tim B and others: rescue the perishing!). What I said earlier is this emergent thing (if in fact the two words ought to be distinct) does make me think twice. But if Driscoll is right, it is valuable and "safe" to be in it and not be identical to everyone in it. FIF sang a song: unity not uniformity. That may fit at this point.


Rescue me before I hurl myself headlong!

BFC and the Ministry of the Word

Intro

So I thought I'd try a vlog for once. Is that what it is called?... a video log, a vlog? Anyway, I want us to think about sermons, the pulpit, the ministry of the Word, and the BFC. A while ago, one of our pastors (It might have been our conference pastor) said while visiting other BFC churches, he'd noticed that few had a Scripture reading as part of the worship gathering. At Camden, we do. But a lot of isolated events recently reminded me of that email and it got me thinking about the effectiveness of the pulpit ministry in our Church.


Mark and John (no, not the disciples)


Mark Driscoll talking about The State of the Pulpit



John Piper talking about the Ministry of the Word



My Thoughts on Expository Preaching

So this is my brief manifesto on why I preach expository. I answer with a question: why did God write the Bible? He wanted our lives to change and be made whole. If God can part an ocean so that His people can walk on dry ground... if God can feed 5,000 men along with countless women and children with only two loaves of bread and two fish... if God really does have the power to change my heart, then He would do it in the way He sees fit. They way He chose was His Word.


Let's Compare Topical and Expository Styles

• In Topical preaching, the pastor tells you his formulas for shaping up.


• In Expository preaching, the pastor explains God's formulas listed within His flow-of-thought.



• In Topical preaching, the pastor can avoid topics he doesn't want to talk about.


• In Expository preaching, the pastor is forced to explain what God means on the subject He brings up.



• In Topical preaching, the pastor shares what he thinks and adds some Scriptures to prove him right.


• In Expository preaching, the pastor lets God's Word do the thinking.



• In Topical preaching, the pastor illustrates his own skills at digging.


• In Expository preaching, the pastor illustrates that anyone can read a book and digest it.



• In Topical preaching, the Word is viewed as a logic jumble that only a skilled technician can dissect in order to find valuable nuggets.


• In Expository preaching, the Word is viewed as simple and understandable and accessible.



• In Topical preaching, the listener has no understanding of why a declaration is made. The listener is expected to accept a statement as undeniable without any more reason than: it is God's Word.


• In Expository preaching, declarations are just as bold, but because the verse, passage, and book are viewed as one logical unit and they are presented that way, the listener sees why a statement was made along with the logical and rationale behind the statement.

Epistemological Humility

While I appreciate Expository preaching, I accept as true the observation made by Dan Kimball in his book "The Emerging Church." He says: the lover of expository preaching cannot find one example in the Bible of a preaching preaching in an expository manner. This is where epistemological humility comes in. I believe my position is the most God-honoring, Scripture-valuing way to communicate and teach God's Word but I am humble enough to recognize how far I can push my agenda and criticize my "opponent."

You aren't really my opponent if you prefer topical sermons, but on this point we do disagree. I love you and the Lord loves you, but your wrong and I'm right. I hope you hear my sarcasm...

Alright, I'm done. Hopefully I gave you something to think about. Peace out.

Emerging Church Follow-Up

Seeing Value Even If We Disagree

Here’s the deal. I try to see both the good and bad in what someone is saying. I really am against the charismatic movement despite some of the positive things I have said of them recently in our examination of the spiritual gifts in Morning Worship. Despite all that could be said of them in a negative light, we must admit that they have done a service to God’s Church insofar as they have forced us all to reexamine the Scriptures on the subject of spiritual gifts. For this, they are valuable. If it is not a stretch (I do not think that it is), I would like to make the same observation here about the emerging church. Despite all the negative things that could be said of them, they are offering to all of us a conversation about the weaknesses of the modern, “scientific” Church. For this, they are valuable.


Where Am I in This Conversation?

Before I get into it, I think it would be appropriate to define myself and my biases before I begin. I am more comfortable with the emerging movement that most BFCers. But I am not part of the Emerging Church because of a lot of the more vocal voices that are unorthodox in the classic sense of the word. There are some great guys in there, Driscoll and Kimball are phenomenal writers, speakers, pastors among countless others in the movement. But there are a lot and the more vocal and center-stage that are out-right heretics. I don't use the word lightly and I won't name names because it isn't my intention to bulldoze someone without the fair trial that I don't have time for here. But, this is why, thus far, I don’t want to call myself part of the movement even though my heart resounds with a lot of what they are calling us into.


Enough, What IS It Already!?!?

Essentially, the Emerging Church is a philosophical movement reacting against the excesses of the Modern Church. And now you might be saying “blah, blah, blah.” Before you start throwing full wine bottles at your computer screen, indulge me. This movement loathes our use of scientific rationale to exegete the Scriptures. They view what the Church has done to God as putting Him in a box. If He is searchable, definable, reasonable, rational, and wholly knowable than He is no longer “worth it.” The intrigue and the seduction of Christian faith is that is faith, reasonable faith, but faith nonetheless. The example that I witnessed which drove me towards the postmodern (or maybe premodern) worldview was a series of events at my college. We had this same speaker, John Franke, come and speak at the Student Theological Society. Many professors attended and after the event, they had a pow-wow in which they denounced the Doctrine of Illumination (which teaches that the Spirit unpacks the Scriptures as the Christian reads, to “guide him into all truth” as Jesus promises in John 16:13). Rather, the professors came to the consensus that it is through the proper implementation of hermeneutics and exegesis (big words for scientific method) which gives the reader the correct interpretations and applications of God’s Word. This is why Tony Jones calls evangelicals “soft Gnostics.” Only those with proper training can induce the meaning of God’s Word. It’s poppycock and any rational Christian should know it.


This is the kind of thing that the Emerging Church is reacting against. Rather than the individual with their proper methods, the Emerging Church values corporate readings of Scripture with time for alternate interpretations within the “conversation.” As all hear and engage the conversation, the Spirit moves the group to conclude the things He wants for them. Can't we say this in the political election process: each person has their say, yet it is "Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes" (Daniel 4:32). Conversation sounds great, but at the same time, I’ve been in Bible studies where the average IQ (and EQ) was lower than a box of rocks. IQ isn’t everything and I don’t want to be guilty of the aforementioned poppycock, but sometimes conversation is good and sometimes it is bad.


Some of Franke's Thoughts

I like what Franke said about our system of doctrines “if we claim that our theology is absolutely concluded, then we par it with Scripture.” This new movement emphasizes suspicion based on finitude. In other words, no one can be certain unless they are God. In an industry that takes pride in certainties, it is uncomfortable to question commonly held beliefs. Yet all the famous men throughout Church history have questioned. That being said, all the villains in Church history have also questioned.

The Foundation for the movement is the question of knowable Truth. So let’s engage in this concept: “the truth is: there is Truth, but only for God.” In other words, emerging church adherents believe that there is Truth with a capital-T, but that only God can possess it. We can and do hold truthes with a lowercase-t, but while they remain true, they do not measure the same intensity and totality as the Truth as God sees it. Franke said “Even the Scripture itself in our eyes is less full then the same Scripture in God’s eyes. The Church Father Iranaeus talked about this when he wrote “God is light, but like no light we have ever experienced.” John Calvin also said similar things when he wrote “humans cannot comprehend knowledge the way God can.” Tim B tells me this is the Reformed Doctrine of Analogy. From what I can tell from orthodoxy and from my own epistemological humility, it makes a lot of sense intellectually and practically. It explains for me why we’re right and everyone else is wrong. I jest… it explains why the men and women who all love Jesus just as much can come up with such wildly diverging views of faith and practice.

Franke says that in God’s sovereignty, He allowed divergent faith traditions within the Church. Tim B whispered to me “is that God’s permissive will or decreetive will?” Or in other words, did God want that or allow that? Franke says that the core of Christianity doesn’t change with differing cultures, but that just as different cultures need “it” in their language, they also need “it” in their heart expression too. That is my lingo for Franke’s thought. When we translate the Bible, we do it in a way that faithfully both expresses the message of the original language AND impresses the heart of the hearer. And similarly, in the way we “do Church” we need to express the counsel of God and impress the heart of the hearer. God is seeker sensitive. That is why there are four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), two chronicles of the kings (Kings and Chronicles). All express the same events as their competing authors but in a way that is sensitive to the hopes and aspirations of the author’s audience.

Franke asked a tough question in his closing lecture: “does theology change as we converse?” He said it as a statement of fact, not as a question, but professors do that all the time. It is some subset technique to the principle of cognitive dissonance or something, I don’t know. I heard it as a question in my mind. It is true that iron sharpens iron and a brother sharpens his brother, but it is also true that jello doesn’t sharpen jello and idiots likewise don’t sharpen each other. So I suppose the truth (lower case) of the statement depends, which I guess emergents would love to hear that! He referenced three Scriptures and then asked this question: “if the Spirit guides, how can we be so divergent from each other?” Ummm! Great question. Here are the Scriptures:

“We have the mind of Christ through the Spirit who searches all things” (1 Corinthians 2:13, 16)
“The Spirit will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13)
“You need no teacher but the Spirit” (1 John 2:27)

Either He lied, or He is bad at His job, or we are the way He wants us to be. Franke didn’t say as some extremists say “or some of us aren’t really saved.” Franke chalks it up to this phrase used twice in the NT “the manifold grace of God” (1 Pt 4:10, Eph 3:10).


Wrap-Up

So those are some real stumpers. Hopefully my overview got you thinking over the whole issue. Even if you don’t want to embrace the emerging culture, it is my hope that you want to engage the emerging culture. Whether we like it or not, more and more people are thinking this way. Maybe not the people in our churches, but people in the world are thinking this way. We need to know where they are so that we can rescue them.


Alrighty, you know the drill... commence commenting!

BFC-MC Emerging Church Follow-up

If you're wondering what we did at Ministerial Convention, lemme tell ya. I would love to tell you, but my good friend Tim Bertolet already did it. He and I attended together. He is the pastor at the Mount Pocono BFC.

Read Tim Bertolet's Thoughts on Dr. Franke's presentations.

So this is what I'm going to do... I'll read his 3 blog entries this coming week and then post any additional things I had to chip in here AND as a coment on his stuff. Fair? I guess.

---

It's October 17, 2007

OKAY, so I finally got around to it. Sorry, sorry, thousand apologies, sincerely. I meant to do this really for you and for me. So here it it: My Follow-Up Appointment with the Emerging Church.

---

If Solomon lived today he'd say "of the reading and writing of blogs, there is no end" (Ecclesiastes 12:12).

New BFC Logo

Here it is, the moment we've been waiting for. I know that my hand drawing back in April didn't do any justice, so try to look at this with fresh eyes.

When you compare the old and new logos, think of these two things:

1) Bible Fellowship Church - the name and elements of the name
2) The Vision Statement - "We, the Bible Fellowship Church seek to become an expanding fellowship of churches united to make disciples of Jesus Christ."

So think and compare and embrace:

New Logo	Old Logo

So let's hear what you have to say about it!

BFC-MC : The Emerging Church

Well, we're off to Ministerial Convention. We'll be sleeping at my wife's folks tonight. Rachel's mom is going to watch the kids Tuesday and Wednesday. This will be the first time Rachel and Evelyn, our youngest, will be apart through the night and the second or third time Rachel and Nathaniel, our oldest, will be apart through the night. Early tomorrow morning, we'll be driving up to Pinebrook for the convention.

The agenda is a conversation on the Emerging Church which will be led by Dr. John Franke, a professor of theology at Biblical Theological Seminary. Franke has led the seminary to enganging the issues of postmodernity, missional theology, and the emerging church. There are of course many opinions on these issues. Some say that to even talk about postmodernism is to tread across orthodoxy into heresy. Personally, the jury is still out for me, but I DO think we should not be afraid to engage in a conversation on these issues. We should be eager to examine what is happening in the church culture and the greater societal culture and make plans to minister to the lost in a more successful way.

A Methodist brother in the minstry told me his church hired a consultant who has been studying Delaware culture for some time. According to my brother, only 16% of Delawareans have gone to church in the last 2 years. There is no doubt, even if the study is off on numbers, that God's Church is not reaching the lost in this world. Why wouldn't we talk together about how we can do better in our mission?!?