Is It A Hard Saying?

Over the next few posts, I will be showing the text of a chapter from a book that I have just read. I will not reveal the author or the book title until after I have posted the complete chapter. For all of those who have been arguing and stressing the fact of needing to be relevant in today's society, to those who have hinted that we need to lower our standards to reach the world to those who feel that the church is almost a hopeless"club", please read these pages. Share your thoughts. Let me know how you feel about this in regards to the above statements.

I want to stress that this writing is not mine, but being that I have posted it, I must be endorsing it.

The title of the chapter is: "Is It A Hard Saying?"

In a former article I said that the want of an infusion of power from on high should be deemed a disqualification for a pastor, a deacon or elder, a Sunday school superintendent, a professor in a Christian college, and especially for a professor in a theological seminary. Is this a hard saying? Is this an uncharitable saying? Is it unjust? Is it unreasonable? Is it unscriptural?
Suppose any one of the Apostles, or those present on the day of Pentecost, had failed, through apathy, selfishness, unbelief, indolence, or ignorance, to obtain this outpouring of power. Would it have been uncharitable, unjust, unreasonable, or unscriptural, to have accounted him disqualified for the work which Christ had appointed them?

Christ had expressly informed them that without this infusion of power, they could do nothing. He had expressly commanded them not to attempt the work in their own strength, but to tarry at Jerusalem until they received the necessary power from on high. He had also expressly promised that if they tarried, in the sense which He intended, they should receive it “not many days hence” (Acts1:5). They evidently understood Him to command them to tarry in the sense of a constant waiting upon Him in prayer and supplication for the blessing. Now, suppose that any one of them had stayed away and attended to his own business, and waited for the sovereignty of God to confer this power. He of course would have been disqualified for the work; and if his fellow-Christians, who had obtained this power, had deemed him so, would it have been uncharitable, unreasonable, unscriptural?

Is it not true of all to who the command to disciple the world is given, and to who the promise of this power is made, if through any shortcoming or fault of theirs they fail to obtain this gift, that they are in fact disqualified for the work, and especially for any official position? Are they not, in fact, disqualified for leadership in the sacramental host? Are they qualified for teachers of those who are to do the work? If it is a fact that they do lack this power, however this defect is to be accounted for, it is also a fact that they are not qualified for teachers of God’s people; and if they are seen to be disqualified because they lack this power, it must be reasonable and right and Scriptural so to deem them, and so to speak of them, and so to treat them.

Who has a right to complain? Surely, they have not. Should the Church of God be burdened with teachers and leaders who lack this fundamental qualification, when their failing to possess it must be their own fault? It is truly amazing to see the obvious apathy, indolence, ignorance, and unbelief that exist on this subject. They are inexcusable. They must be highly criminal. With such a command to convert the world ringing in our ears; with such an admonition to wait in constant, wrestling prayer till we receive the power; with such a promise, made by such a Savior, held out to us, a promise of all the help we need from Christ Himself, what excuse can we offer for being powerless in this great work? What an awe-inspiring responsibility rests upon us, upon the whole Church, upon every Christian!

Shall We Become Relevant?

New day. Emergent Church. Vibrant Church. Relevant Ministry. And a whole lot more. There are a vast amount of terms used today through out the church world to describe the status of ministry that the church should obtain and/or function at. Why do we, church leaders find ourselves so often wrapped up in making sure we have the “correct” terminology as the basis of what we do as a church? Don’t get me wrong, I deeply believe that the church must be relevant to the ministry community to where God has placed them. We must relate to the people to whom we have been entrusted with the Holy task of sharing the all powerful Gospel of Jesus Christ. We must make sure we are using all available “tools” to get the message out beyond the walls of the church. After all Jesus was the first one to us PowerPoint in his message. Recall the story of the woman caught in adultery and in the midst of the message to those standing around he drew something on the ground and showed to the onlookers? (I know that point is lame but I thought I would just throw it in to see if anyone catches it.) We must think beyond the boundaries of tradition.

Do not all these terms really mean ministry? Do they not describe exactly what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:19-27?
“Although I'm free from all people, I have made myself a slave for all people to win more of them. I became Jewish for Jewish people. I became subject to Moses' Teachings for those who are subject to those laws. I did this to win them even though I'm not subject to Moses' Teachings. I became like a person who does not have Moses' Teachings for those who don't have those teachings. I did this to win them even though I have God's teachings. I'm really subject to Christ's teachings. I became like a person weak in faith to win those who are weak in faith. I have become everything to everyone in order to save at least some of them. I do all this for the sake of the Good News in order to share what it offers. Don't you realize that everyone who runs in a race runs to win, but only one runner gets the prize? Run like them, so that you can win. Everyone who enters an athletic contest goes into strict training. They do it to win a temporary crown, but we do it to win one that will be permanent. So I run-but not without a clear goal ahead of me. So I box-but not as if I were just shadow boxing. Rather, I toughen my body with punches and make it my slave so that I will not be disqualified after I have spread the Good News to others.” (God’s Word Version)

Paul, as well as the members of the early church, had a solid grasp upon what it took to win lost people. They deeply understood the term “emergent”, “relevant”, “seeker-sensitive”, “vibrant” and any of the “church-correct” (like politically correct) terms that grace across the pages of today’s modern day church growth movement. Oh, they understood deeply their culture, for they were a part of it. They understood the necessity of relating with the people groups they we involved with as they shared the gospel. However, I feel that one of the main distinctions that is prevalently seen among them, was they did not candy-up the gospel message. The gospel message is suppose to give a stinging effect to the hearers. The presentation of the gospel message does not become more powerful because we have altered the methods of presentation to reach the post-moderns.

A couple of years back, I got involved in a discussion with a minister in North Carolina about rather the Bible is any longer relevant to society. He told me, that there is a group of churches with strong ties in Alabama that is in the process of re-writing the Bible. His claim was that they felt that the historical Bible no longer contains the adequate messages for today’s society. Because of this conclusion, they feel that a new Bible must be written so that the modern society can hear from God. This is more than just another paraphrased version or another translation; it is a totally new bible.

Though I have not been able to find credible sources of confirmation of this information, may I assume for a minute that it is true? With this being true it raises a fear within my heart about becoming relevant as the main focus of what we do as a church. I know that this is a very far extreme result but could this become the final destination of the road of becoming relevant?

Let me suggest the following: If we have …
Empowering Leadership, Gift-based Ministry, Needs-based Evangelism, Inspiring Worship Services, Passionate Spirituality, Loving Relationships, Holistic Small Groups and Functional Structures then we will win the lost, disciple believers, equip the disciples and release labors into ministry. This will take place through the 5 avenues of growing the Church. We will then be: Broader through Ministry, Stronger through Worship, Larger through Evangelism, Warmer through Fellowship and Deeper through Discipleship.

Let’s not get so wrapped up in relevant terms of modern dialect, but let’s get wrapped up in being impacted by the passion of Christ … with a desire to impact all people with that passion. I guess what I am trying to say is this. Are people coming into a life changing, heart cleansing, and life equipping relationship with Jesus Christ through the things we are doing as a church? If not then why do it? Being relevant is not the issue … or is it?
Hum ….