On the problem of speaking effectively.

Whatever charisma may be, I don’t seem to have much of it. No, I’m not talking about the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit such as the ability to perform miracles or speak in foreign languages without first studying them. (Though I don’t have that kind of charisma either!) I’m talking about whatever it is that some people have which automatically attracts others to them and makes them want to listen to what they have to say. The whole issue of what makes people want to listen has recently become important to me because I’ve been told (rather pointedly!) that there are some who don’t like my speaking style.

A personality thing

I’ve never understood the phenomenon, but there are some people who seem to have instant credibility. They walk into a room and the center of gravity shifts. They become a center of attraction even if nobody knows them. Their presence is so powerful that it casts a shadow over everyone else. The force of their personality is such that they are able, at least to a certain extent, create their own reality. For lack of a better term, I call this sort of attraction ‘animal magnetism.’ When in the vicinity of such beings, it’s hard for us ‘mere mortals’ to get a hearing, let alone a favorable response.

My father has this gift – at least to a certain degree. I’ve seen him garner a respectful hearing from both pauper and princess. I’ve witnessed a hard-boiled customs official break into a beatific smile, stop Dad’s car and invite him to tea. When on a missions trip it doesn’t seem to matter when speaking the local language that his accent leaves much to be desired, his syntax and grammar are skewed and his diction, suspect. He just raises his voice, pounds the lectern a little harder, bulls his way forward through the swamps of language, and the people lap it up. In contrast, though I’ve been told that both my accent and diction are better than his, I have to really work at getting the same kind of hearing. It’s tempting to whine that life isn’t fair.

Though that sort of natural magnetism is undoubtedly a blessing to those who possess it, it can also turn into a temptation to cut corners. I’ve observed more than one speaker who substituted the force of his personality for solid research or exegesis. Oh, there are times when all of us are forced to bluff our way through because we genuinely haven’t had the time or opportunity to prepare as we ought. In those situations it often seems that the Spirit gives an extra measure of grace and what we feared would turn into disaster proves to be when we are the most eloquent and persuasive. But when a preacher begins to count on that as a regular occurrence; when he gets used to mesmerizing others with his charm and personality rather than doing his homework, he’s succumbed to a form of spiritual pride.

Perils of Prince Charming

It’s not only speakers who get short-changed by relying on their magnetism: their audience does too. All too often people get so wrapped up with the speaker’s persona that they don’t pay sufficient attention to him or his message. Malcolm Gladwell describes this phenomenon in his book blink, The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. He calls it the Warren Harding Error.

By most accounts, Harding was the worst President the United States has ever had. He freely admitted to his friends that the job was beyond him. He had few if any enemies because he didn’t take a stand on anything. His speeches contained little of substance. His administration was notoriously corrupt. Several of his appointees later served jail time. On a personal level he, at different times, had several mistresses (at least one during during his time in office) not to mention an unknown number of one night stands. Clinton was not the first to have illicit sex in the Oval Office. Harding fathered at least one illegitimate child. Heavy cigar smoke, spittoons, free-flowing whiskey and swearing were all hallmarks of the twice-weekly marathon poker games in which he indulged. Even those who feel that Harding has been judged unfairly concede his drinking, chewing and philandering.

Ironically, Harding was swept into office by a landslide in the popular vote. He got over 60% of the vote while his main rival received only about 30%. Assuming that the majority view of Harding among historians is correct, how could someone so weak, incompetent, uncommitted, undisciplined and morally corrupt garner so much public confidence? Gladwell suggests that it was because of Harding’s personal charm. He simply looked presidential. He was tall and handsome. He was unfailingly courteous and polite – giving the impression that he cared about those with whom he interacted. His voice was rich, deep and melodious. He sounded good. Though he didn’t have much to say, he said it in a way, and with a voice, which mesmerized his hearers.

Needless to say, trust which is given on the basis of personality, without substance to back it up, is a fleeting thing. The adoration of the crowd is fickle and it is doubtful that Harding could have retained the goodwill of the people very long. Though he actually died of a heart attack, it was reportedly caused by food poisoning. Harding’s wife was widely suspected of poisoning him to prevent his being implicated in the scandals which rocked his administration.

So, while ‘animal magnetism’ can definitely play a role in whether a person is an effective communicator, it is certainly not the only factor involved. What, then, is involved? Why do we listen to some people while we tune others out? Or, to make it more personal, why should anybody listen to me?

Elements in the ability to persuade

Elsewhere in these musings (see the entry titled On Rhetoric) I questioned the emphasis we put on sermons. I even question the one-way nature of many of our classes. Regardless of whether I’m right or not, because of cultural expectations we are stuck with sermons and other rhetorical methods for the foreseeable future. That being the case, according to the rhetoricians what makes an effective speaker? What enables him to persuade? Aristotle identified three things which are still considered valid. These three elements are taught to this day in classes on speaking and communication.

Ethos

The Greek word ‘ethos’ means ‘custom.’ When Aristotle wrote that ethos was one of the elements in persuasion he meant that the effectiveness of a speaker depends on how closely he conforms to the accepted values of those whom he addresses. In other words, is a speaker credible? Do we perceive him as trustworthy?

How do we judge whether someone is credible or worthy of our trust? One of the yardsticks we use to determine whether someone is credible, is character. We react according to what we know about the speaker or writer. We tend to listen to those who are honest and upright while we discount the words of the dishonest and devious. Actually, I should say that we make our judgment of whether someone is credible or trustworthy based on perceived character. For, we will respond to another based on our perception of their character regardless of whether our perception is accurate or not. Someone may be a crook and a congenital liar, but if we perceive him to be honest we will consider him more credible than someone who is innocent, honest, and without guile, yet is under a cloud of suspicion.

Another factor in credibility is whether we think a speaker or writer knows what he’s talking about. We will tune someone out even though he has a spotless character if we perceive that he is uninformed, hasn’t done his homework or is unsure of his facts. For example, I remember a brochure from the 1970s that one of young people in the youth group I led, once showed me. The intent of the brochure was to warn against the dangers of the rock music of the era. Though the intent was probably good, the basic premise – that the major record labels were in a conspiracy to corrupt youth – was, to put it mildly, suspect. But the real clincher which destroyed all credibility was this: The author purported to describe – complete with illustrations – how an album is made. It was blindingly obvious that this person had never set foot inside a recording studio and knew nothing about the process. If he couldn’t be bothered to find out the facts about a very well-known, widely publicized and easily researched process, why should I believe his assertions about secret deliberations in the boardrooms of the record labels? I would argue that this sort of blatant nonsense actually does more harm than good. A person who was exposed to it, and rejected it for the nonsense that it is, might very well become skeptical about legitimate warnings. It doesn’t build credibility when we manufacture ‘facts’ to support our theories. It doesn’t build credibility to ‘cry wolf’ unless there really is a wolf out there.

A third factor in deeming a speaker or writer credible is the perception of his attitude toward his audience. In other words, does a speaker or writer feel goodwill toward his audience? We tend to listen to those whom we perceive have our best interests in mind. On the other hand, we will discount the message if we think the speaker or writer wants to use us to further his own agenda, boost his own ego, patronizes us or talks down to us.

Pathos

A second element in persuasion is ‘pathos.’ The root meaning of this word is ‘suffering.’ We derive the word ‘sympathy’ from it which means to ‘feel along with.’ In the context of effective speaking or writing, pathos refers to an appeal to emotion.

Emotion can be an extremely powerful force. It can, and often does, override logic and knowledge. C.S. Lewis gives the illustration in his book The Four Loves of a woman who freely acknowledges that she will be utterly miserable married to the man who has captured her affections. She knows that they are headed for tragedy. But in spite of that knowledge; in spite of all reason and counsel from those who love her and have her best interests at heart, she walks open-eyed into disaster.

How can a speaker or writer harness the power of emotion to persuade his audience? It seems to me that he can do it in one of two ways: Either he can demonstrate that he sympathizes with his audience, or he can stir up the sympathy of the audience for himself or for a third party. It’s an elusive thing, but if he can stir emotions in a positive direction, a speaker or writer will have a much better chance of getting people to do what he asks them to do. On the other hand, woe betide the speaker or writer who manages to stir up people’s emotions against himself!

Logos

Aristotle called the third element of persuasion ‘logos,’ that is, the ‘word.’ This is same term which is used in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word…” In the context of speaking and writing it refers to an appeal to the intellect through logic or reason.

While Christianity certainly involves the emotions (for example, see Ephesians 6:6 and 1 Peter 1:22), it is also a very reasonable faith. We do not have to set our brains to one side in order to follow Christ. Quite the contrary. The Christian faith satisfies the intellect as no other faith or philosophy can. Every other system of which I am aware contains fundamental contradictions and inconsistencies at the very core. Only Christianity is internally consistent and supplies the answers to our deepest questions.

Since intellect and rational argument have a large place in Christianity, it follows that those of us who speak or write as Christians will use logic and reason in trying to persuade. Our effectiveness will depend, in part, on whether what we say is logical and our reasoning is sound. Our influence will diminish in proportion to our guilt in uttering logical fallacies and non-sequiturs.

Dynamic delivery

To Aristotle’s three elements I would add a fourth. Effectiveness in speaking depends, in part, on how dynamic a speaker is. This involves such things as varying the rate, pitch and loudness of his voice, eye contact with the audience, gestures, posture and movement. However, unlike Aristotle’s elements which seem to be constants in every age and society, the importance of being dynamic varies depending on the culture and where we are in the generational cycle. (At least in America.)

Take, for example, one of the most famous sermons of all time, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards. One place he delivered it was at Enfield, Connecticut on July 8, 1741. Judging by conventional wisdom, Edwards violated every principle of effective delivery. He read his sermon, apparently without looking at his audience. He read it in a calm, quiet voice which seems inappropriate for the subject matter. Yet, the response was so overwhelming that some accounts say that he was unable to complete the sermon because of the crying and wailing of droves of repentant people calling on God for mercy.

The key to this apparent contradiction is that Edwards delivered his sermon during the Great Awakening. This was a point in time where people were entering what Mike Regele and Mark Shulz call the ‘experiencing faith’ phase of the generational cycle. At the beginning of 2009 we are at a different part of the cycle – we are just entering the ‘doing faith’ phase – and the response to Edward’s sermon is very different. I remember my daughter describing the reaction of the kids in her High School English class after they had read it. One response was puzzlement. The whole concept of sin and the consequences of it were foreign to their way of thinking. Perhaps the biggest reaction, however, was irritation and anger. What right did Edwards have to judge them? They missed the entire point which is, that God longs to extend mercy and forgiveness to those who will repent.

The point I am trying to make is that the impact of a dynamic delivery will vary depending on where we are in history. To be effective, we must vary our delivery according to the perceptions and needs of the time in which we live. I suspect that a dynamic delivery is probably much more important right now than it will be 20 years from now.

Examples from the Scriptures

How do the elements of persuasion which Aristotle wrote about hold up in the light of Scripture? Though the Apostles were not trained in Greek rhetoric (for example, see Paul’s comment in 2 Corinthians 11:6), they used all three of Aristotle’s elements in their speaking and writing.

John

How did John use the appeal of ethos? In 3rd John, verse 12, he made a direct appeal based on his known character: “…and you know that our testimony is true.” (NIV) He did the same thing while referring to himself in the Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” (John 24:21 NIV)

John also made repeated appeals based on his knowledge. In his writings, he uses the phrase, “we know” over and over. Even more importantly, John argues on the basis of his personal, first-hand knowledge of Christ. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” (1 John 1:1 NIV)

John also expressed his goodwill towards those whom he was addressing. For example, he starts his second letter this way, “To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth…” (2 John 1 NIV)

John also made use of pathos. For example, he used an emotional appeal for us to lay down our lives, and to help those in need. Since Christ laid down His life for us, we ought to be willing to do the same for others (See 1 John 3:16-18).

John’s writings are also strongly supported by logos. In fact, John began the Gospel which bears his name with an exposition of Christ as the Logos, who enlightens and gives life to men.

Peter

One of the best known examples of a persuasive speech by the Apostle Peter is the one he delivered on Pentecost, which is described in Acts, chapter 2. Most of his sermon is based on an appeal to reason (logos). For example, in verse 15 he used deductive reasoning (reasoning from a general principle to a certain conclusion) to prove that he and the others who had received the outpouring of the Spirit were not drunk. He also quoted Old Testament Scripture to prove his contention that Jesus is the Messiah.

Yet, interspersed in the logical appeal is ethos as well. He established a rapport with the audience by calling them ‘brothers’ in verse 29. He established credibility by citing his, and the other Apostle’s, first-hand knowledge of the resurrection (verse 32).

Peter finished his sermon with an appeal based on pathos. “You are guilty of killing God’s Christ.”

What was the result? “When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”” (Acts 2:37 NIV)

Paul

Perhaps of all the New Testament writers, Paul comes most often to mind for his use of ethos. He was not shy in citing his credentials. Though not a trained speaker, he had knowledge (2 Corinthians 11:6). He stated over and over the fact that he was an Apostle (For example, see 2 Corinthians 12:12, Galatians 2:8). He was an eyewitness of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 1:9, 15:1-8). He cited the work which he had done (1 Corinthians 15:10). He even used his earthly qualifications and attainments as an anti-argument! (See Philippians 3:1-7)

Paul is even more well known for his use of the logos appeal. For example, a major portion of the letters to the Romans and Galatians is based on tightly reasoned, logical argument. In the first 3 chapters of Romans, Paul used inductive reasoning (using specific examples to derive a general principle) to demonstrate that no one is righteous, but that are all under sin. But in chapter 6, he used deductive reasoning (deriving a specific conclusion from a general principle) to show that those who have died to sin by being baptized into the death of Christ, are no longer slaves of sin (See verses 5-7). Paul not only used reason, he also appealed directly to the reason of his audience. “I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.” (1 Corinthians 10:15 NIV)

Though Paul is best known for his use of ethos and logos, he also made some amazing appeals to pathos. For example, in writing to the Thessalonians, Paul described his relationship to them as both mother and father (See 1 Thessalonians 2:7, 11).

No doubt, it was this skillful weaving of ethos, pathos and logos which made Paul one of the most persuasive writers of all time.

Jesus

The ultimate example, of course is Jesus. He too, used the three elements of persuasion.

He argued from ethos when He made such statements as, “…Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going…” (John 8:14 NIV), “…You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” (John 8:23 NIV) and, “Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?” (John 8:45-46 NIV)

Another expression of ethos is that Jesus taught with authority (Mark 1:22). In addition to authority, however, Jesus showed goodwill toward those He addressed. One famous example is the prelude to the feeding of the 5 thousand: “When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.” (Mark 6:34 NIV)

Jesus’ teaching was also full of pathos. Consider just one of many possible examples: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28 NIV)

Jesus also appealed to the intellect in His teaching. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used deductive reasoning to show the necessity of providing a good example (See Matthew 5:14-16). In the same sermon He also used inductive reasoning to show that God will take care of those who serve Him (See Matthew 6:28-33, 7:9-11). These are just 2 of the many examples of the logos appeal in Jesus’ teaching.

What about dynamic delivery? Not much is said about the delivery style of the Apostles, or Jesus. There are a few hints, though. “On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice…” (John 7:37 NIV) “Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd…” (Acts 2:14 NIV) “Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described…” (Acts 12:17 NIV) “Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said…” (Acts 13:16 NIV) From these and other hints I think it is safe to say that Jesus and the Apostles knew how to use their voices and body language to reinforce their message. On the other hand, it is obvious that they never overdid it. Form never overshadowed the message.

A self-evaluation

Since both Jesus and the Apostles used all three of the elements of persuasion, ethos, pathos and logos, I think that we who claim to speak and write on behalf of Christ would do well to examine how we use them. That being the case, how do my messages stack up? How well do I employ the elements of persuasion?

How well do I do in the ethos department? For starters, I do have a good reputation. Whatever else people may think about me, I’m sure that everyone who knows me would agree that I’m honest, trustworthy and dependable. One of the nicest compliments I have ever received was, “When you get up to speak, you show humility.” The compliment meant all the more to me because it came from one of my children.

Do I know what I’m talking about? Even my detractors concede that I do. One of them went so far as to tell me that I find insights in Scripture beyond his ability. Though he criticizes my speaking he has appreciated my teaching. Of all the speakers and teachers at the congregation, I probably spend more time in study or research than anyone. When people ask questions in class, I am generally able to answer and, if challenged, have the sources to back up what I say. When I don’t know, I say so then, go and find the answer and present it next time.

How well do I project that I have the well-being of those I’m speaking to in mind? Here, I may have a little difficulty. I am a fairly introverted and private person. It’s not always easy for me to express emotion. Sometimes, I’m afraid, it probably comes across as being aloof. Yes, I care. At times it’s fair to say that I care very deeply – but I’m not sure that people always pick up on it.

What about the element of logos? Does my speaking appeal to the intellect? Do I use logic and reason? Oh, yes! Reason and logical explanation is one of my strong points. Deductive and inductive logic both play a part in my speaking. I’m known for using charts and maps and explaining the historical background. I go out of my way to explain context, and draw logical conclusions from the text under discussion. I try to go into the who, what, when, where, why and how of things. If anything, I’m sometimes guilty of going into things too deeply. Sometimes I get too philosophical. Though nobody has called me on being illogical, I may not always put things in simple enough terms for everyone to understand.

What about pathos? Do I engage people’s emotions when I speak? Of the three elements of persuasion, this is the one where I am probably weakest. Since I don’t particularly appreciate it when someone tries to play on my emotions, I’m not very good at doing it to others. Among other things, this makes it difficult for me to think of illustrations which really grip people and drive home the points I’m trying to make. It’s ironic, because in some of the course material I’ve developed, I talk about the power of Jesus’ illustrations – how the parables and stories are so memorable and applicable because of His use of ordinary things to which everyone can relate. I understand some of the theory, but find it incredibly hard to put it into practice. It’s an area where I consciously struggle to improve.

So, granted I need improvement in the area of pathos, but considering that I rate high in ethos and logos, why the complaints about my speaking? Most of it boils down to the pesky business of delivery. Part of it is my voice. I am blessed (or cursed, depending upon your point of view!) with a very soft voice. Without reinforcement it would be almost impossible for people in the last row to hear me. In recordings, my voice is noticeably at a lower volume than other people’s voices. I suspect that people subconsciously interpret my soft voice and lower volume to mean that what I have to say isn’t as important.

Another factor may be my rate of delivery. People have complimented me on my ability to read Scripture because I read with lots of expression and meaning. But when I speak, I tend to speak more slowly. A large part of the reason is that if I go faster, I tend to get ahead of my thoughts or lose my place in my notes. It’s an area where I’m trying to improve.

Speaking of notes, I’ve also been criticized for having my nose in them too much – particularly at the start of a sermon. It’s true that, whenever possible, I fully manuscript my messages. One reason I do so is that it helps me figure out how to say things. It also helps me catch all sorts of problems in logic or flow. But when I deliver a message, I don’t stick slavishly to the written manuscript, nor do I read most of it – though I often do read passages of Scripture from my notes rather than take the time to turn there in my Bible. However, the criticism probably is valid that I depend too much on my notes at the beginning of sermons. I’m told it comes across like I am unsure of my material. I’m still trying to find the balance. I don’t want to memorize as that often is just as mechanical as reading.

Probably the biggest problem is that I am not a very dynamic speaker. I am certainly not a pulpit pounder. That kind of thing just isn’t me. And whatever anyone says, I am not about to learn a bunch of artificial gestures. Yes, I could probably be more expressive, but it’s got to come from within. In the long run I think that genuineness will prove to be far more effective than any amount of mimicking someone else’s technique.

A lot of this probably comes down to experience. How can anyone get good at anything without doing it? Until a couple of years ago, I had very little experience in public speaking. Practice makes perfect. I’m sure things will improve with time.

Writing all this out has helped me identify specific areas I need to work on. Yet, I couldn’t help but think about another area which impacts effective communication. This is not to excuse or justify any of my own shortcomings, but what does it say about the recipient when good content is depreciated because the delivery isn’t as polished as it might be? Didn’t Jesus have something to say about types of soil? (See Matthew 13:1-23) Something to think about!

Poverty and the Christian response to it.

Going on a missions trip can be exciting, terrifying, joy-filled, disturbing, deeply satisfying, frustrating, faith-building, challenging, exhilarating, exhausting, motivating, enervating, boring, frantic, fulfilling, humbling, mind-blowing, numbing, meaningful, life-threatening, an exercise in patience and fun. The work can be incredibly hard and the hours long. It can challenge your faith and draw you incredibly close to the Lord. The positives usually far outweigh the negatives. It’s a time of spiritual growth and being stretched. You come back forever changed. But, there is one aspect of mission trips I dread and detest with a passion. Almost daily, sometimes several times a day, people request financial or material aid. And, most of the time, I have to turn them down.

From my perspective I am a lower-middle class, ordinary ‘Joe’ with limited (sometimes very limited!) personal resources. Most of the money I have with me on a missions trip is not mine – I am merely the steward of other people’s funds which have been entrusted to me to accomplish a very specific task or project. Even if I did not have to give an accounting, if I gave to everyone who asked I wouldn’t have enough left to complete the tasks or projects I went on the trip to accomplish. I might not even have enough to get back home!

From the perspective of the people who ask for help, however, I am an incredibly wealthy person who can tap into pots of money whenever I like. The reason I don’t give is not because I don’t have it, it’s because I don’t want to. The concept of designated funds doesn’t fly too well. The perception that I’m tight-fisted isn’t helped at all by the fact that the very nature of a short-term trip forces one to spend in ways that you wouldn’t if you lived there. For example, it costs a lot of money to rent a room at a hostel (though far less than staying in a hotel). Eating in restaurants starts to add up after a few days. Having your clothes laundered commercially isn’t cheap either. But what choice is there? I would prefer to pay the people I’m going over to serve for the facilities and services I need but, if they are unable to provide them, I have to hire them elsewhere.

It also doesn’t help that time is limited. There are only X number of days to accomplish whatever it is that you went there to do. If you lived there you could afford to take a little more time and figure out how to do things as inexpensively as possible. But you don’t live there and you haven’t got the time. So, sometimes you end up throwing more money at a problem than you would under other circumstances.

The locals witness all this and marvel at your profligacy. Looking through the filter of their need blinds them to the larger picture. They cannot see the, sometimes great, sacrifices which you’ve made to bring them whatever help you could. There are times when the physical and material overshadow the worth of the spiritual blessings you’ve brought.

Each person who encounters genuine need and poverty has to learn to cope with it somehow. So far, I haven’t done a very good job of coping. I come away feeling guilty, embarrassed, angry and helpless. It would be easy to become callous. Since even if I gave everything I have it would only be a drop in the ocean of need, it’s tempting not to give anything at all. Is there a solution to poverty? If so, what is it?

A world without poverty?

Imagine, for a moment, a world without poverty. What would it look like? George MacDonald shares his vision of such a world in his book The Curate’s Awakening. He replaces the profit incentive with the motive of service. The idea is that anyone who has goods or services will joyfully give to anyone who needs them, secure in the knowledge that his own needs will also be met in the same way. Needless to say, this would only work if everyone was almost wholly Christ-like. MacDonald also does not address the issues of capital investment or the production of goods. We need something a little more real-world. Something which is less simplistic and Utopian and makes allowances for fallen human nature.

Let’s start with land reform. To level the playing field (pun intended), in my ideal state all land belongs to a central authority. Before you write me off as an expletive deleted, for spouting MarLenism propaganda (MarLenism is a deliberate misspelling, by the way!), consider the following: Every family except those in the ruling class is given an equal holding of land. As long as they abide by the laws of the state, the land grant is perpetual. There is no lease to expire and nobody can run anyone else off his allotted portion. Though the land does not belong to the family which lives on it, they may do anything they like with it except sub-divide it or sell it. This includes farming, ranching, mining, forestry and the establishment of light industry. To ensure ecologically sound practices, everyone must farm organically and also let the land lie fallow every seven years.

The land grants are inherited on the principle of primogeniture. In other words, upon the death of the head of the household, the entire parcel goes to the eldest son. If there are no sons, the land goes to the oldest daughter, but does not become part of her husband’s homestead. In this way the land is held together in economically viable tracts and nobody can permanently accumulate more than one holding. It is also an inducement for younger sons to enter trade, start a business or go into service industries. If there is no one to inherit, the central authority will assign the holding to a different family.

Though the land, itself, may not be sold, it may be leased out. In addition, if a family does not wish to work the land themselves, they may sell anticipated future harvests or produce to someone outside the family who does want to work the land. The family may repurchase the rights at any time on a prorated basis.

Our hypothetical, poverty-less society is administered by a hereditary caste. Before you dismiss this notion out of hand take another look at history. Hereditary ruling classes have often done at least as well as elected officials – and having one avoids the expense, false campaign promises and general waste and expense of holding elections. In contrast to the general populous, families in the administrative class are not given any land grants. They receive only a townhouse and a garden plot. This prevents them from adding too much economic clout to their political power. Another difference is that in contrast to land grants, townhouses may be sold. The sale of a townhouse is permanent. This is another corrective. Chances are that others in the ruling class won’t allow someone who is too incompetent to hold on to his own house much say in the administration of the state.

How shall we fund this state of ours? There are three major sources of revenue. One source is use taxes. What could be more fair than paying for the services you use? A second source of revenue is a poll tax. A small, but equal, amount of money is collected from every person 20 or more years old. This emphasizes everyone’s equality before the law. A third revenue source is a flat income tax of 10 percent. As there are no exemptions or allowances, this tax is easy to compute.

Now, let’s design a safety net. Those seeking additional job security over piece work or day labor may enter into labor contracts. (In other words, they can hire themselves out as indentured servants.) These contracts are regulated by law to avoid exploitation. The laborer gets security, room, board and other necessities, and a nest-egg at the conclusion of his contract in 7 years. In return the employer gets service at half the going labor rate.

Every third year the income tax is specifically earmarked not only for the maintenance of those in the administrative caste, since they have no income producing land, but also to restock dole houses where the disadvantaged or those in crisis can receive commodities free of charge. Those without sufficient income are free to harvest what they want from fallow fields, orchards and vineyards. By law, farmers are required to leave the corners of their fields for the less advantaged to harvest. Anyone can help himself to a meal of fruit or grain from anyone’s land at any time.

By law, private loans are interest-free. Rather than a source of income for the one making it, a loan is regarded as a means to help someone through a financial tight spot.

What’s to prevent a few shrewd and resourceful people from continually buying up options, and therefore, in effect, permanently displacing families from their homesteads? What’s to prevent someone to permanently enslave another through debt? Our hypothetical society has two reset mechanisms. The first is an automatic bankruptcy clause which takes effect every 7 years. Debts are automatically canceled. As a result, debtors are protected from creditors and assets are unencumbered.

The second reset occurs every 50 years. In that year, all land reverts to the original grantee or his heir. In other words, every couple of generations, every family gets an opportunity to start over. No matter how badly somebody has messed up, he gets another shot at making a go of things. Whether he chooses to remain on the land and work it, or immediately sells the future produce for instant income is a separate issue.

By now, most of you have probably already figured out that the economic system I’ve just outlined is identical to what is in the Law of Moses. Sure, I’ve disguised it a bit but, aside from the explanations I inferred for the various features, I took the economic system straight out of Exodus and Deuteronomy.

There are a couple of statements in Deuteronomy 15 which have always intrigued me. In verse 4, Moses writes, “…there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you,” (NIV) Yet, in verse 11, he continues, “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” (NIV)

The point is this: If even God could not devise a system which would eliminate poverty, who are we to think that we can? No matter what programs we initiate; no matter what services we provide; no matter how much we give, we will never succeed in eliminating poverty. Unfortunately, what Jesus said is true, “You will always have the poor among you…” (John 12:8 NIV)

The causes of poverty

What causes poverty anyway? If I read him aright, Ronald J. Sider in his book Rich Christians In An Age Of Hunger traces the roots of modern poverty largely to colonialism. As he and others are fond of pointing out, the Western colonizers overthrew sophisticated cultures in the lands they controlled or conquered.

No doubt the colonial period did have its share of injustice and economic horrors, particularly in places like the Belgian Congo and parts of Central and South America. There is no question that some of the effects remain to this day. But to lay the blame for present-day poverty at the feet of colonialism is simplistic to the point of being almost intellectually dishonest. Sure there were sophisticated cultures in existence before the colonizers arrived. But they were hardly benign utopias where poverty was unknown. Anybody who has read Kipling, let alone the scholarly histories, knows that! Read Kipling’s The Naulahka, which I recommend to all aspiring missionaries to South Asia, for an entertaining introduction to the culture clash between East and West.

Sider, and others like him, also seem to conveniently forget that the United States was once a collection of colonies, too. If colonialism is the cause of present poverty, then how come the United States is one of the richest nations on earth where the majority of people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in human history? Clearly, there are other factors at work. Particularly when one realizes that other places which experienced colonialism are blessed with as many, if not more, natural resources as the United States. What has held them back?

If poverty cannot be laid at the door of colonialism, then what is to blame? There isn’t just one cause, but many. For example, lack of initiative is a cause. This is a problem which persists from way back in the Apostle Paul’s day. He wrote to the Thessalonians: “…If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10 NIV) We often take this as a directive not to support those who refuse to participate in productive labor, but it can just as well be taken as a statement of fact. The reason some are poor is that they refuse to do anything about it. They want the benefits of labor without accepting the responsibility to labor.

A related cause is life-style choices. In her book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, Barbara Ehrenreich relates her attempt to survive on minimum-wage jobs. No doubt there are many cases of genuine hardship, just as she states. No doubt she is right that there are many honest, hard-working people who don’t make wages adequate to live on. Yet, as I read the book I was struck by how many cases there were where the people involved were merely reaping the consequences of ungodly choices they had made earlier, or of holding on to costly bad habits or vices. We reap what we sow.

Another cause of poverty is exploitation. For example, James writes of those who defraud laborers by withholding their pay and other forms of coercion (See James 5:1-6).

Still another cause of poverty is our inability to handle wealth. In order to understand this we need to remember God’s intention for us. Ultimately, God’s intent is to make us like Christ. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son…” (Romans 8:28-29 NIV) In light of this, God may very well keep material blessings from us if they would prevent us from becoming Christlike. The potential for material prosperity to turn people away from God was something He warned the Israelites about before they entered Canaan. “When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you. Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God, failing to observe his commands, his laws and his decrees that I am giving you this day. Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God… You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.”” (Deuteronomy 8:10-14, 17 NIV)

Another cause of poverty is natural disaster and the random chance which seems to be an inherent part of this fallen creation. “…The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. Moreover, no man knows when his hour will come: As fish are caught in a cruel net, or birds are taken in a snare, so men are trapped by evil times that fall unexpectedly upon them.” (Ecclesiastes 9:11-12 NIV)

And, let us never forget that the devil has his hand in the distribution of wealth, or the lack thereof. For example, remember what happened to poor old Job. The devil is out to destroy us and he’ll use whatever it takes, whether it be poverty or wealth, to accomplish that goal.

When you stop and think about it, the causes of involuntary poverty can be summed up in one word: SIN! Whether it is caused by sloth, exploitation, pride, demonic influence or a fallen natural universe, involuntary poverty can always be traced to the fact that people have chosen to disobey God’s instructions.

How bad is it?

Just how bad is poverty, anyway? How wide-spread is it? Sider paints a grim picture of over 1.3 billion people, or roughly one in 5, living in absolute poverty. 750 million of these are malnourished – 151 million of them, children under the age of 5. He writes that 900 million people are illiterate, 1 billion do not have access to elementary health care and 1.6 billion do not have safe drinking water. Further, he notes that the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.

Truly, that is a grim picture. I do not question Sider’s statistics. Further, I agree with him that we should be concerned about our less advantaged neighbors in the world and do what we can to alleviate their suffering. Having said that, Sider largely missed one of the most important revolutions in the history of mankind. The edition of his book to which I’ve been referring was published in 1990. That was approximately the year when the forces of globalization reached critical mass. This led to the adoption of capitalism and explosive economic growth in much of the world during the 1990s. This growth has continued into the 21st century.

In his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas Friedman writes, “…for all the churning that global capitalism brings to a society, the spread of capitalism has raised living standards higher, faster and for more people than at any time in history. It has also brought more poor people into the middle classes more quickly than at any time in human history. So while the gap between rich and poor is getting wider – as the winners in today’s globalization system really take off and separate themselves from everyone else – the floor under the poor has been rising steadily in many parts of the world. In other words, while relative poverty may be growing in many countries, absolute poverty is actually falling in many countries. According to the 1997 United Nations Human Development report, poverty has fallen more in the past fifty years than in the previous five hundred. Developing countries have progressed as fast in the past thirty years as the industrialized world did in the previous century. Since 1960, infant mortality rates, malnutrition and illiteracy are all significantly down, while access to safe water is way up. In relatively short periods of time, countries that have been the most open to globalization, like Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, Chile and Sweden, have achieved standards of living comparable to those in America and Japan, while the ranks of the middle class in countries like Thailand, Brazil, India and Korea have swelled, due partly to globalization.”

My own experience, limited though it is, bears this out. Take for example the urban slum I knew as a boy. The same people still live there and it’s still a slum, but mud huts have been replaced with multi-story brick houses. Floors which once were surfaced with a mixture of mud and cow dung are now concrete, tile or terrazzo. The sewer is no longer an open ditch. The houses now have running water, indoor plumbing and electricity. TVs are common. Motorcycles have started to replace bicycles. It seems like everybody has a cell phone. When I visited there not too long ago I was amazed at how many computers I saw. The children of illiterate and semi-illiterate parents are now attending college.

If there’s been so much progress, then why do I still get besieged by people asking for help? Though the picture may not be nearly so grim as when Sider wrote his book (and I haven’t read what he’s written more recently); though real progress has been made, the fact remains that poverty and real need has not been eliminated. There’s still a very long way to go.

The cure for poverty

What’s the solution to need and poverty? If globalization has had such an impact and been so effective in raising living standards, is it the answer to eliminating poverty? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Earlier I wrote that the cause of poverty can always be traced back to disobeying God’s instructions. Since poverty stems from spiritual causes, it can never be eliminated by a material solution. The root issue has to be dealt with.

Why then has globalization been so effective in alleviating the plight of so many? To explain this apparent contradiction, let me give you PresbyterJon’s theory of prosperity: “A people or a nation will prosper to the extent that it follows God’s principles.” That statement needs some immediate qualifiers:

1) There is no room in the theory for the “health and wealth” gospel. It is not, and never was, God’s intent to made us wealthy. It is His intent to make us like Christ. If it takes want and need to form us into Christ’s image, then those are the tools which God will use to accomplish the task. Furthermore, the theory, as stated, applies only to peoples and nations, not individuals. It is very likely that individuals will have to give up wealth and/or suffer persecution in order to follow Christ. Jesus’ command to “count the cost” (see Luke 14:26-33) is no mere metaphor.

2) Wealth and prosperity are not indicators of righteousness. Remember that the devil tempted Jesus by offering Him all the authority and splendor of the world’s kingdoms. I take that to include the wealth of the world’s kingdoms as well. Jesus never denied that the devil had the authority to give it. If the devil has the authority to grant wealth and prosperity, then we cannot automatically assume that those who enjoy them are blessed of the Lord.

Keeping those qualifiers firmly in mind, there does seem to be a correlation between living by God’s principles and prosperity. For example, continuing from the Deuteronomy passage I quoted above, Moses states an important condition: “However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. (Deuteronomy 15:4-5 NIV) In other words, if the nation kept the Mosaic Law, God promised prosperity.

Now those words were directed specifically to the nation of Israel. What God said to Israel does not necessarily apply to anybody else but, in this case, there does seem to be a general principle involved. For example the principle seems to be implied in the following Proverb: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” (Proverbs 14:34 NIV)

If I am correct that there is a correlation between following God’s principles and prosperity, then it helps explain why America has been so materially blessed as a nation and also why globalization has been instrumental in raising the standard of living for so many. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, let me state emphatically that I am not one of those who believes that the United States was founded as a ‘Christian Nation.’ In my view the whole concept of a ‘Christian Nation’ is an oxymoron. Also, though I am very grateful that the United States is an independent nation, I believe that the revolution against Great Britain was scripturally wrong. “For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry…” (1 Samuel 15:23 NIV) In my view, God has not blessed America because it rebelled against Great Britain, but in spite of it.

If the founding of the nation resulted from sin, then why has it been so blessed? The Ayatollahs and others of their ilk would say that America has been blessed from below and not from above. I do not believe that. I say that God has blessed America above almost all others because, in spite of its dubious origins, it has followed God’s principles to a greater degree than most other nations. Whatever its national and individual failings, and there are many, America has historically held on to much of the moral ethic and many of the ideals found in Scripture.

What do I mean by the moral ethic of Scripture? I mean such things as the principle that all are equal before the law. Included in the ethic is keeping one’s word, honesty in business, looking out for the interests of others, giving a fair return for services rendered and rendering fair service for wages received. It includes a concern for justice, a recognition of duty towards others and a repudiation of bribes and corruption. It involves the idea that we are here not just for ourselves but to serve one another. Even such institutions as the Bureau of Standards are reflections of the ethic.

Though the majority of Americans are not, and never in history have been, Christians, for the most part they have still accepted the ethic of Scripture. They have often failed to live up to it, yet still agree that it is good and right. I believe that it is because America has upheld the ethic to a greater degree than most other countries that it has also been blessed to a greater degree than most other countries.

This also explains why globalization has succeeded in raising living standards. For, in order for a nation to participate in the globalization system, it has to adopt parts of the ethic. For example, investors are not willing to risk their capital unless they have a reasonable assurance that the people with whom they are dealing are honest. They want assurance that a contract will not be nullified by a competitor’s bribe. They require transparency in order to make informed decisions. They demand honest books so they can evaluate risk more accurately. They want equitable laws so that disputes can be settled justly. To the extent a nation adopts the ethic, to that extent its material blessings increase and poverty diminishes.

But this also highlights one of the limitations of globalization. The benefits which have come from globalization are a byproduct of the ethic. Therefore, globalization, by itself, can never eliminate poverty. The ethic is, essentially, a spiritual thing. It is quite possible to adopt the externals of the ethic as a matter of pragmatism without embracing the ethic itself. In other words, instead of the behavior being driven by convictions of the heart it is adhered to because others require it. The ethic is accepted because it works, not because people agree that the ethic is intrinsically right. Until and unless we can get people to not only adopt, but accept the ethic from the heart, all of the attempts to eliminate poverty, including globalization, are merely dealing with symptoms, not the root cause.

I’m writing this at the beginning of 2009. Many are comparing the current financial crisis to the beginnings of the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Should the crisis worsen, it’s quite possible that many will conclude that globalization and free trade have failed, just as many in the 1930’s concluded that democracy and capitalism had failed. We should not be surprised if the ethic is repudiated along with the repudiation of globalization. (Tangent: The causes of the current crisis can be traced directly back to a failure to keep the ethic. But that’s another story!)

A principled, Christian response to poverty

So where does this leave us as Christians? Given that poverty is still with us, and always will be, what should our response be?

First, we need to recognize that poverty is not merely a question of redistribution. It is not merely a logistical problem of moving sufficient food to the areas which need it. It is not merely a question of providing jobs. It is not a problem of providing health care and clean water. The core of the problem is spiritual, not material.

In recent decades there has been a trend in mission work to put less emphasis on evangelism and concentrate instead on community uplift projects. This is a terrible mistake. In the final analysis we have not done any good if we have fed people’s bodies but failed to give them the ‘bread of life.’ “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36 NIV) It is likely that even the material gains will be short-lived if those we try to help do not embrace the ethic of the Scriptures.

Second, though our priority must be preaching the gospel, we must never make listening to the gospel a condition of providing help. Christians are often accused of offering material aid as bribes in order to win converts. Though the accusations are often false, the concern is valid. Giving aid to entice people to hear the Word is to cheapen both them and the gospel. It is to treat people as mercenaries. The following quote from Paul is taken out of context, yet fits: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,” (Romans 14:17 NIV) Helping the poor should be a natural outgrowth and expression of our faith in Christ, not a gimmick to further our agenda.

Third, we must learn to help in ways which do not undermine the churches. When we provide aid to people in countries less fortunate than our own, we all too often bypass the local church with our programs and projects. When we do this we set ourselves above the leaders of the local body. We undercut their authority and the concept of family and unity within the church. If a program or project does not have the blessing and enthusiastic participation of the local church is it worth doing? It is significant that when Paul collected aid for the suffering believers in Judea, he did not bypass the local church but gave the offering to the Elders of the church in Jerusalem.

Fourth, we need to give priority to fellow believers. “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” (Galatians 6:10 NIV) It is easy to cause resentment when we provide more aid to those outside the church than to those within it.

Fifth, we need to recognize that competence in the Word does not equal competence in providing real material help. There is much we can learn from those outside the church. A while back my father and I were reminiscing about some of the projects in which we had been involved in the attempt to raise living standards. We could not think of a single success. Obviously we missed a thing or two along the way. If we’re serious about developing programs and systems to help the poor, we need to study and learn from those who already have a proven track record.

Sixth, we must learn to put the priorities and aspirations of the people we are trying to serve above our own. Partially as a result of our limited understanding of the cultures in which we are trying to work; partially as a result of our Western ‘can do’ attitude; partially as a result of our standards of accountability (which are often incomprehensible to people in other cultures), it is easy to impose our ideas and our solutions on those we are trying to help. Because we are the ones with the resources it is easy to unwittingly run roughshod over their emotions, thoughts and wisdom.

Seventh, we must help and give in such a way that it does not create dependence. It is all too common, in my experience, for those in need to request foreign assistance as a first resort. We need to encourage people to take a realistic look at their own resources before asking for help. The intent is to provide a helping hand, not a hand-out. The intent is to lift them out of poverty, not confirm them in it.

A personal response to poverty

Those are high sounding principles, but they don’t answer the question of what we can do on an individual level. How can we, as individuals help those poorer than ourselves?

Before we can give, we must have something to give. How can we give when so often it seems that we ourselves are just getting by? The obvious answer is by downsizing and/or simplifying our lives. I’m not going to offer any suggestions here – but I’m sure that each of us can think of things that we don’t really need. I’m sure we all can think of ways we could live more simply.

The real question is what should we do with the resources we’ve freed up? One reason I write these essays is to help clarify my own thinking. I began this one by telling about the dilemma I face while on mission trips. How can I accomplish what I’ve been sent to do and at the same time be of real help to those who ask me for material or financial help?

I still don’t have the answers. I probably don’t even understand the problem nearly as well as I ought. But as a result of trying to come to grips with the issue, here’s what I think I’ll try on the next trip: Next time, I think I’ll take some money with me which is specifically intended for benevolence. But I don’t want to bear the burden alone, nor do I want to act outside the authority of the local church. When someone asks me for help I’m going to ask whether he or she has brought the need before the church. If the church feels that it is a legitimate need – particularly if it is one which they feel they also ought to address – then, provided I still have some funds available for the purpose, I will contribute toward meeting that need. But I will do so through the church instead of directly. Hopefully, this will have several benefits.

For one thing, it’s more than likely that the locals will know the situation far better than I. They will know the real facts. Following their lead will help keep me from making mistakes.

More importantly, I hope that this approach will raise the consciousness of the local churches to their responsibility to look after their own. This, in turn, could foster the concept of the church as an interdependent family.

I hope this approach will also get people thinking about the resources they already have. Just maybe the next time a need comes up the first knee-jerk reaction won’t be to look for outside assistance. It will help the church realize that they truly are independent, not merely a mission outpost, and can take action on their own initiative.

I’m also hoping that acting in this way will result in a sense of greater harmony and fellowship between the local churches and myself. By acting through the church; by acting as part of the body instead of an independent outsider; it should reinforce the truth that in Christ we are one. It will demonstrate that I respect their authority.

Yes, I realize that what I’ve presented here is far from a complete answer to what we should do about poverty. I haven’t said anything about how we can help when we can’t personally be present. I don’t have those answers. But who knows? Maybe the small start I’ve suggested to solving for my own personal dilemma will spark other ideas down road.

Some thoughts on the preparation and selection of Elder candidates

When I wrote this, the U.S. was grinding its way through another election cycle. More than once I found myself growling about the process. When you consider all the time and treasure which are expended it’s enough to make the blood boil. Even worse, from my point of view, is how candidates are selected. There are times when I’ve seriously wondered if the country wouldn’t be better served if candidates were chosen by random lot. On average would it be much worse than the slate of candidates we’re actually given? Perhaps all political parties should be abolished and the country’s leaders, themselves, selected by random draw.

I know, I know! That’s just the cynic in me talking. Our process in this country is no worse, and often much better, than what goes on in most other places. Lest anyone take umbrage at some of my comments, let me hasten to say that, given human nature and the examples of history, I’m very grateful for the form of government we have. It sure beats the alternatives. Our system of government with its checks and balances has done a pretty good job of keeping the grossly incompetent and/or venal out of public office. Or, more accurately, limiting the damage when we’ve been dumb enough to put them into office. Given fallen human nature, the old boys who wrote the U.S. Constitution came up with a fairly decent system.

Methods of leader selection

But when you stop and think about it, the system of government is not nearly as important as the character of the leaders chosen to run the government. In his essay Constitution for Utopia, John W. Campbell, Jr. points out that any form of government will result in utopia (defined as an optimal – not a perfect – society), provided that the rulers are wise, benevolent and competent. The real problem is how to select such leaders.

Through the centuries a great many systems of selecting leaders have been tried. Campbell rules out the selection of leaders by random chance, which I facetiously advocated, presumably because even if people were, on average, wise, benevolent and competent (which they certainly are not!), random selection would ensure that we got at least a few ‘bad apples’ in every draw.

What of Plato’s notion of training people from infancy to be ‘philosopher kings?’ Campbell points out that there’s no reliable test to predict who will grow up to fit the criteria. Also, as any high school student can tell you, the way to get high marks on any subjective test is to tell the teacher what he wants to hear regardless of whether the answer makes sense. So, even if we could define what a ‘philosopher king’ is, there’s still no reliable way to select and train them.

Aristocracy has worked rather well in certain periods of history. The idea is that a wise, benevolent and competent leader will breed true and pass the characteristics on to the next generation. But Solomon pointed out long before Campbell, that it doesn’t always work that way. “I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have control over all the work into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun. For a man may do his work with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then he must leave all he owns to someone who has not worked for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune.” (Ecclesiastes 2:18-21 NIV)

Communists have tried the theory that the selection of leaders should be the sole prerogative of the politically indoctrinated. This suffers from the same problem mentioned before: It’s all too easy to feed the testers what they want to hear. It also suffers from rigidity because it perpetuates the assumptions and theories of the founders of the system.

Immunity breeds corruption

Campbell evaluates a few other ways of selecting leaders and finds flaws in each. Though it may be politically incorrect to say so, he points out that one of the worst methods of rule is to do away with leaders altogether and install popular democracy. The idea is that leaders are not needed because everyone gets to vote on everything. In practice, what has repeatedly happened is that popular democracy becomes mob rule. A mob will do all kinds of things which not a single person in it would condone or approve.

What makes a mob so corrupt and destructive, Campbell says, is immunity. The individuals which comprise it are anonymous, therefore there is no one to call to account.

In light of this, leaders, however they are selected, must never be given immunity. They must be held accountable. They must be a minority which is not allowed to achieve a position of security. They rule by the sufferance of those they govern.

A pragmatic test for leader selection

How, then, should such leaders be selected? Campbell suggests that it should be by a pragmatic, non-theoretical test. He proposes the following: In order to qualify for leadership, a person’s average earned annual income over the prior 10% of of his life must be in the top 20% of the population. As with any man-made system, there are probably some hidden flaws and unintended consequences in this proposal, but I found myself strangely attracted to it – even though I, myself, don’t meet the proposed criteria! It would certainly tend to weed out the incompetent.

As I was reading Campbell’s essay, it dawned on me that much of what he was saying applies to the church. Particularly his points about immunity and selecting leaders by a pragmatic test.

The form of church government

Now, the New Testament is pretty clear on what form church government should take. There should be autonomous local congregations which are governed and overseen by Elders (plural) who actively speak and teach. (In New Testament usage, the terms Elder, Shepherd, Pastor, Overseer, Presbyter and Bishop refer to the same leader. They are alternative names which describe different aspects of the same role. Also note that in the context of the church ‘leadership’ is characterized and defined as ‘service.’ Yes, an Elder ‘rules’ and ‘oversees’ but he is primarily a servant.) Those who advocate some sort of hierarchical structure or ‘located minister’ or ‘Senior Pastor’ system, need to take another read through the New Testament. What follows is specifically about Elders, but some of the principles apply equally to other leaders in the church.

Elder immunity

Given that congregations should be led by Elders, how should we go about selecting them? Let’s first take take a look at the idea of immunity. Unfortunately, in many congregations Elders are virtually immune. In part, this stems from a genuine reverence for the role. Godly people are very hesitant to criticize someone who is in a God-ordained role. Another complication in many congregations is that while there is a procedure for appointing an Elder, there is no mechanism for removing one. As a consequence, once someone is ordained an Elder, he’s in for life. To compound the problem, Elders often are not required to give an accounting of their leadership to the congregation, nor do they seek input from it. The congregation is isolated from the decision making process and is in the dark about how and why decisions are made.

While this style of leadership can be quite stable, just as often it is hide-bound, rigid and out of touch with the needs and spiritual condition of the church body. More importantly, is it biblical? I think not. Elders who are immune tend to forget that they are servants of the congregation. They can be tempted to “lord it over the flock” (See 1 Peter 5:2-3). According to Hebrews 13:17, leaders in the church certainly will be held accountable. “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account…” (NIV) In the context it’s probably speaking of them giving an account to God of their handling of the responsibilities entrusted to them. But I think it goes further than that. Though the New Testament doesn’t explicitly say so, I believe that Elders should also be accountable to the congregations they serve. There are hints…

Consider the few records we have which mention the appointing of Elders or other servant-leaders in the church. It would be foolish to get too dogmatic about it, but I have the impression that while it was an Apostle, Evangelist or group of Elders which appointed or ordained the candidates through the laying on of hands, it was the congregation which did the actual selection of those who were so appointed. If I’m right about that, it means that existing leaders received and acted on input from the congregation. It also implies at least a certain degree of accountability to the congregation.

There’s more. 1st Timothy 5:19-20 says, “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” (NIV) In my experience, this verse is usually used as a defense and safeguard against unjust or frivolous accusations. It certainly does protect – and I think it was intended to. But, when you stop and think about it, the verse also assumes that there is a procedure in place to call Elders to account. They are not immune. They must answer for their wrongdoing. They are, in fact, held to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of the congregation. Elders who sin are rebuked publicly. It sounds very much like Elders are answerable to the congregation. While action against an Elder is not to be taken lightly, a congregation should have some mechanism in place to “hold their feet to the fire.” Something we did in the congregation where I served as an Elder was require the Elders to report to the congregation once a year about what they’d done during the past year and what their plans were for the coming year. This requirement helps Elders to focus more on what they should be doing. It helps the congregation get a better feel for a man’s effectiveness in the role.

But here’s the rub: Suppose that there is no moral or ethical failing. Suppose that there is nothing you can really put your finger on but, for whatever reason, a particular man is ineffective as an Elder. Suppose the congregation made a mistake in selecting a particular person. Once a person has been ordained to fill the role, how can you remove him? It’s a real problem. It’s extremely difficult to overcome the inertia of incumbency. In the absence of sin (and, unfortunately, sometimes even when blatant sin is involved) it is rare that there will be 100% agreement that an Elder should step down. Should even a majority ask for an Elder’s removal, it has real potential for causing hard feelings or even a split in the congregation. If the entire congregation is agreed that a particular Elder should step down, it’s still likely that he will have hard feelings toward the congregation. The net result is often inaction. Because the spiritually minded do not want to cause division, they remain silent. If they become too frustrated, they eventually leave rather than cause a disturbance. In the meantime, the congregation continues to cripple along with an ineffective Eldership. Since the Elders feel immune, because they are not made accountable, they continue to make poor decisions. As a result, the congregation either stagnates or falls prey to fads and false teaching. How can this type of situation be avoided? How can Elders be held accountable, not only spiritually, but in effectiveness? How can Elders be removed as gracefully as possible? Since the Bible does not seem to give specific guidelines, it’s a real dilemma. Each congregation will have to arrive at its own conclusions.

In the congregation where I served we gave these questions some long and hard thought. Several of us came from congregations where the Elders effectively were immune. The congregations had little input and the Elders were secure in their incumbency. We did not want to repeat the experience. The solution we came up with is term limits. Elders were appointed for three years. At the end of three years they were required to step down for a year. If they wished to serve again, they had to again go through the process in which their qualifications were examined and approval was again given by the congregation. Our system was not perfect. One obvious limitation, was that while it provided a graceful way to get rid of ineffective Elders, it also limited or constrained the service of those who are competent and effective. Why should those who are doing an excellent job of serving have to step down? Why should the congregation be deprived of their leadership after an arbitrary period of time? However, after taking everything into consideration, the three-year time limit seemed like a good compromise. [Note: After I left the church scrapped the term limit requirement.]

Elder qualifications

Having taken care of the immunity question, we’re still left with the problem of a non-theoretical, pragmatic test to screen Elder candidates. Fortunately, just as the New Testament defines what form church government should take, it also provides the basic parameters for Elders. The qualifications of Elders are listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Peter 5:1-4. But, until recently, I had not considered them in terms of Campbell’s criteria.

As I go through the lists, I have to admit that some of the qualifications of Elders are subjective. Take, for example, the statement that an Elder must “not be given to much wine.” How much is much? It’s a judgment call. Some would say that any is too much. Others would say that drinking is permissible as long as the guy isn’t an alcoholic and never gets intoxicated. In the congregation where I served, we ruled out all social drinking and the consumption of alcohol in public. We did tolerate an Elder having a glass of wine at dinner in the privacy of his own home. But, it’s a judgment call and each individual congregation has to decide just what the requirement means.

Another qualification of an Elder is that he must be “able to teach.” I’m fairly rabid about this qualification. One reason I feel so strongly about it is that I’ve seen far too many Elders who, in my opinion, couldn’t teach their way out of a wet paper bag. But that’s the rub – it’s my ‘opinion’ that they can’t teach. In someone else’s estimation they might be a fine teacher. You also have to consider context while evaluating whether someone is capable of teaching or not. Teach who? Teach what? The fact is that a person may be a very capable teacher in one setting and a flop in another. Though I hate to admit it, the requirement that an Elder must be able to teach is not entirely objective. A candidate’s ability to teach must be evaluated in the setting of the individual congregation where he will serve.

Pragmatic, objective tests for Elder candidates

Several of the other Elder qualifications are also subjective. But there is at least one that is not. As I was reading Campbell’s essay, this one leaped to mind. The letters to Timothy and Titus both say that an Elder must be “the husband of but one wife.” (The Greek literally says, “a one-woman man.”) Most commentators these days seem to take the position that if an Elder is married he must remain faithful to his wife. I’ve heard all the arguments that say that an Elder can be single – as in never married. I’ve heard the arguments that the requirement doesn’t apply to divorce and remarriage. I’ve heard the explanations that these passages say nothing about the issue of polygamy. Blah, blah blah. Yadda, yadda yadda. Choke, gag puke! May I submit the radical proposition that the Apostle Paul, and therefore the Holy Spirit through Paul, said exactly what he meant and meant exactly what he said? I suggest that this is not a subjective option which can be interpreted any way we like. It is an easily verifiable, pragmatic and objective criterion which is there for a very good reason. In contrast to some of the other qualifications, it’s very easy to see whether a man is married. It’s an objective, pass/fail test. Has he got more than “one woman” (whether he’s married to them or not)? Again, it’s an objective, pass/fail test. Is he guilty of serial polygamy – as in divorce and remarriage? Another objective, pass/fail test. As far as I’m concerned, Scripture is clear on this issue: If a man is not married, or he has not been able to keep his marriage together, or he has multiple wives, he is not qualified to oversee the Lord’s church as an Elder. Period. He may have many sterling qualities and talents; he may be a very godly man but he is disqualified for the role of Elder. He might make a wonderful Evangelist or Teacher, but not an Elder.

A related issue is that of children. In Titus 1:6 it says that an Elder’s children must believe (NIV, NASB, ESV) or be faithful (KJV, NKJ). Here we have some more objective criteria for an Elder candidate. Does he have children? Yes, or no? Are they old enough to make an informed choice about how they are going to live their lives? Yes, or no? Further, have the children decided to live a godly life? Yes, or no? Similar to the arguments that say an Elder doesn’t have to be married, there are all kinds of justifications for ducking these tests. I’ve heard of cases where men have been put forward as Elder candidates who had no children at all, or whose children were infants. But we ignore these criteria to our own peril.

As the home, so the church

Why is this so important? Paul tells us in 1st Timothy 3:5, “If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?” (NIV) The family is the proving ground of a man’s ability to oversee and shepherd the church. Without the experience gained in the home, a man is not fit for a similar responsibility in the church. If you want to know how a man will perform as an Elder, just look at his home. It’s high time we ditched the politically correct malarkey so many pattern church government by, and the business-school theories used to pick Elders (if churches have Elders at all), and get back to the objective standards of Scripture. Oh! And by the way, here’s another pragmatic, objective test that is sure to raise the ire of many these days: Paul assumes that Elder candidates are of the male persuasion. Women need not apply.

Growing Elders at home

All this brings up an important corollary. We want our Elders to be wise, benevolent and competent, but are dismayed that so few of the available candidates actually actually meet the criteria Paul lays out. If one of the keys to effective oversight and leadership in the church is effective leadership and oversight in the home, we need to equip and enable the men in the church to be effective at home. Is it possible that one of the reasons there are so few qualified men who could be appointed as Elders is that we have not emphasized their role in the home as we ought? But that takes long-range vision and planning. We tend to operate with a quite short horizon. Perhaps if we taught men how to love their wives (Ephesians 5:25-28) from before the time they marry, and to raise their children in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4) from the time the kids are born, we’d have more men qualified to lead in the church 20 years down-road. Let me forestall the notion someone is sure to bring up, of sending our men to Bible college to learn how to be effective husbands and fathers. It just isn’t going to happen that way! Even if it were possible to send everyone to Bible college – which it certainly isn’t – a student would typically get only a single one-semester course on family and marriage during an entire four-year degree program. No, it’s going to take major commitment on the part of existing leadership in the churches to provide year-in and year-out training, mentoring and support if we are going to develop the kinds of homes, and thus the kinds of leaders the church needs. Something to think about!

Christians have curiously mixed attitudes towards prosperity and affluence. Many have merely adopted the attitude of the culture in which they live. They have the same concerns, the same desires and the same reactions as their unbelieving neighbors. Just like their neighbors, they worry about how to stretch the paycheck to cover the mortgage, pay something on their credit card bill, save up for the next vacation and finance the kids’ education. Just like their neighbors, they dream about having a larger disposable income. It has probably never even occurred to many of these Christians that there could be any other way to look at things.

Others have concluded that prosperity is a Christian’s birthright. They think that wealth and affluence are indications that they have God’s approval. Some even go to the extreme of saying that it is a Christian’s duty to become wealthy. Moderate income, lack of material possessions, and sometimes even poor health, are taken as signs that a person is outside of God’s will.

Still other Christians view prosperity with deep suspicion. They have a tendency to look at all money, regardless of source, as tainted. Though required in order to live in today’s world, it is a necessary evil. Wealth must have been acquired through questionable, if not dishonest, means. Even Christians who do not adopt this extreme distrust of prosperity and affluence, are often troubled by the way the world’s wealth is distributed. If they enjoy a modicum of prosperity, they feel almost guilty that others do not have the opportunity.

Now, your attitude toward prosperity and affluence does not necessarily depend on how much you actually have. The “love of money” can, and does, afflict the poor just as easily as the rich. But I suspect that wrong attitudes in this area are more of a potential problem in our day and age that at any other time of history. You see, affluence wasn’t a realistic possibility for most people until fairly recently. Oh sure, like Tevye, we might occasionally daydream about “If I were a rich man,” but we normally don’t waste much consideration on things which are hopelessly out of reach. And that’s just what affluence was – an impossible dream.

For most of human history, and in most societies there were basically two kinds of people: The haves and the have-nots. Either you were rich, or you were poor. The gap between the two conditions was large and there were comparatively few people in it. And, while the rich could become poor, there was little opportunity to change your status from poor to rich. At least that’s what my reading of history seems to indicate.

While, historically, the poor may not have had much opportunity to change their status relative to the rich, their condition was affected by general economic conditions. The poor generally experience even greater hardship during an economic downturn. Conversely they, along with everyone else, tend to benefit from a booming economy. “A rising tide lifts all boats.” General prosperity increases the opportunity for individual prosperity.

With that in mind, I think it is highly significant that God told the Israelite exiles to pray for the prosperity of Babylon. “This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”” (Jeremiah 29:4-7 NIV) It’s incredible that even though the Israelite people had been driven into exile as a result of their sin, God still cared for them and desired them to prosper. It reminds me of Romans 2:4, “…God’s kindness leads you toward repentance…” (NIV)

In our day, aside from prayer, what is it that drives prosperity? What brings affluence to a whole region or nation? I blame it on the horse collar. No, not really, it’s not the horse collar but rather what the horse collar represents which is one of the major causes of prosperity and affluence. You see, it was the invention of the horse collar which made rapid transportation and large cities viable. If memory serves, before the collar, a horse couldn’t haul much more than its own weight without choking on the harness. With the collar it could (if I have my figures straight) haul ten times its own weight. Because a horse is much faster than an ox, this meant that produce and other goods could be moved more quickly than before. It also meant that a farmer could plow more quickly or, and this is the important thing, could plow a larger area in the same day. This meant that fewer people were needed on the farm to accomplish the same amount of work. Redundant people tended to move to the cities in the attempt to find employment in the manufacture of goods or in providing services. The horse collar, in turn, made it possible to haul enough produce to feed the larger cities and to transport the goods produced in them. Thus, began the long process of migration from the farm to cities. The trend accelerated dramatically during the industrial revolution when steam, internal combustion engines and, later, electricity, began to displace muscle power. I witnessed the mechanization of the farm in the country where I grew up. Untold thousands of people were displaced from the countryside and flocked to the cities hoping to find work.

Where was this work supposed to come from? Who was going to provide it? Why factories, of course! But that was only a hope. A factory can exist only as long as there is a market for its products. So, in order for people to find work in a factory, the factory has to produce something that can be sold. The big question is, “Who is going to buy the stuff the factories produce?” Obviously, people who can afford to do so. The problem is that it takes a degree of affluence in order to buy non-essential goods. But when only a small percentage of the population is affluent, the rich can consume only so much. So, we have the classic problem of people needing work which will only be provided if someone will buy the goods produced. But nobody can buy the goods unless they have the means to do so. And they won’t have the means to do so unless they have work. It’s a vicious circle.

Enter Henry Ford. In the early days of the automobile, most manufacturers produced high priced vehicles intended for the well-to-do. The logic was quite simple: The well-to-do were the ones with the money. Also, higher priced vehicles carry a higher profit margin so you had to sell fewer of them in order to get a decent return. The problem with this strategy was, of course, that there were relatively few well-to-do people able to afford the high priced vehicles. This, in turn, meant that relatively few expensive vehicles could be produced before the market was saturated. There was little room for growth or expansion. Ford’s genius was that he realized that it was possible to increase the market by reducing the price of his cars. The reduced profit on each individual vehicle would be offset by the increased volume of sales. In order to make lower prices possible, Ford turned his attention to increasing efficiency of production. During the years 1913-1914 Ford introduced the first moving assembly lines in his factories. As a result the time needed to produce a Model T automobile fell 87%. By the end of 1916 Ford was able to lower the price of a Model T 58% to only $345, yet still rake in millions in profits.

Had Ford merely lowered the costs of production and the price he charged for his cars the impact on society would have been relatively minor. The main difference would have been that the wealthy accumulated their wealth even faster. But he did something else which had a profound influence on the economy, not only of the United States but the whole world. In 1914 he introduced the $5 a day wage plan. At the time such a high level of compensation for a day’s work was unheard of. Thousands of desperate men from all over the United States swarmed into Detroit in hopes of being one of the fortunate who landed a job in the Ford factories. While some applauded Ford for a stupendous act of generosity, others derided him as an altruistic fool who would not be able to sustain such astounding wages. Others denounced him for mixing “spiritual principles” with business. What Ford’s detractors could not know was that with the efficiencies obtained by the moving assembly line, Ford could have easily paid his workers much more and still made a handsome profit.

Something else which Ford realized, and his detractors did not, was that by increasing wages he also increased the purchasing power of his workers. He expressed his philosophy this way: “I hold that it is better to sell a large number of cars at reasonably small margin than to sell fewer cars at a large margin of profit. I hold this because it enables a larger number of people to buy and enjoy the use of a car and because it gives a larger number of men employment at good wages. Those are two aims I have in life.” (As quoted by Robert Lacey in Ford, The Men and the Machine, Ballentine Books, New York, 1986, p. 179)

What was the result of those high wages? According to Lacey, in two short years, the value of houses owed by Ford employees increased 900%. In the same period, their savings rose some 282%.

To his credit, Ford never attempted to patent any of the assembly-line and manufacturing technologies which he and his team invented – something which he could have easily done. The techniques Ford pioneered were soon adopted by manufacturers everywhere. They had to in order to remain competitive. Other manufacturers were also forced to follow Ford’s lead in paying higher wages. For who was to buy all the increased output of the newly efficient factories if it were not for the very laborers who operated them? Efficient factories produced large quantities of goods at comparatively inexpensive prices. High wages enabled workers to buy the goods. The standard of living rose with increased purchasing power.

There is no doubt that the U.S. economy, and that of much of the world, is now based on consumption. Consumption and the ability to consume has produced a level of affluence unprecedented in all of human history. More people have more wealth than ever before. The middle-class U.S. consumer is the engine which drives much of the world’s economy.

And this brings us back to those ambivalent attitudes I mentioned at the beginning. On the one hand, consumption has brought prosperity and increased standards of living all over the world. What could possibly be wrong with that? Like the exiles of Israel should we not pray for the prosperity of the place we live? If the American consumer were to suddenly stop buying, it would bring genuine hardship to millions.

On the other hand, there is something about the consumption economy which seems cross-grained to Christianity. For one thing, there’s the sheer waste of it. It just seems wrong to throw so much away! This is particularly evident in high-tech. We are forced to toss out perfectly good equipment for the sole reason that it’s no longer compatible with the latest software. When something breaks it’s often cheaper to replace it than to repair it. Somehow, it doesn’t sit well, even when there isn’t a viable alternative.

Another way in which the consumer economy seems at odds with Christianity is that it is so materialistic. It’s easy to allow the sheer number of ‘things’ to divert time and attention from what is really important. Is it really necessary to have so many gadgets? The bigger house? The newer car? Does it really matter if the neighbor buys something we don’t have? The Apostle Paul writes, “For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.” (1 Timothy 6:7-8 NIV)

And that, I think, is the solution to living a Christian life in a consumer economy. It’s a matter of perspective. Having things is not wrong in itself. In its place, consumption is okay too – particularly when it provides employment and daily necessities for someone else. Where we get into trouble is when we allow the things to take priority. Jesus said, “…do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” (Matthew 6:31-33 NIV)

How will the leader shortage be filled?

Have you ever wondered what preachers talk about when they get together? Being as I’m not only a preacher’s kid but a missionary’s kid as well, and have witnessed countless such chin-wags, I think I can answer the question with some authority. Like any other group of like-minded people, preachers will eventually start “talking shop” even if that wasn’t the purpose of their get-together. They’ll laugh over the amusing incidents which have occurred in their ministries. They’ll commiserate, or chuckle depending on circumstances, over some of the bone-headed faux-pas they’ve pulled in the pulpit. They’ll pray together. They’ll weep over the tragedies. They’ll ask and give advice about how to handle various situations. They’ll bounce ideas or sermon topics off each other. They’ll argue theology or ask each other’s insights about passages of Scripture. But there’s one topic which probably comes up more than any other. It’s almost inevitable that sooner or later, preachers will start bemoaning the shortage of preachers, the dearth of leaders in the church in general, and wonder where the next crop of workers in the church is going to come from. I’ve heard several conversations that painted the situation in terms of crisis.

Leadership crisis

There really is a crisis. There is a perpetual shortage of leaders in the church. While I don’t agree with the system which says that a church must have a ‘pulpit minister,’ it is the system followed by almost all of the congregations with which I am familiar. At any given time, there seem to be several that are looking for someone to fill the pulpit. I know of congregations which have looked for six months or more before finding someone to fill the position. If even existing congregations have trouble filling leadership slots, then where are the leaders going to come from to plant new congregations?

The situation is even more dire than it appears on the surface. If, as I believe, congregations should not be dependent upon ‘pulpit ministers’ but should be led by Elders who are competent to speak and teach, there is an even greater lack of qualified leaders. The same lack is evident when it comes to competent Deacons and Teachers.

Bible colleges aren’t the answer

For at least the last 100 years or so the thinking has been that Bible colleges and seminaries would train and supply the leaders we need. By now it should be obvious to all that the strategy isn’t working. If the colleges and seminaries really were the answer to solving the shortage of leaders, the shortage wouldn’t exist. If they haven’t been able to solve the problem in over 100 years of trying, it’s highly unlikely they’ll be able to do so any time soon.

There are a lot of practical reasons why the colleges and seminaries will never be capable of turning out the leaders we need. Consider:

1) In many cases students are forced to move to where the college is located if they are to receive training.
2) As a result, those with leadership potential who are unable to relocate, or choose not to do so, are unable to receive appropriate training.
3) In the case of those who do go, their home congregations are deprived of the services of some of their most talented and capable people.
4) Many of those who go do not return. Instead of gaining trained leaders, the home church loses them.
5) The cost is often prohibitive. The colleges must charge high tuitions in order to maintain their infrastructures and staff.

These are just a few of the practical limitations of the college/seminary model. But the real problem with the college or seminary approach to leadership training is systemic. More on that later.

Unfulfilled vision

My father has often told me that when he was in Bible college, the professors said that the college was merely an expedient. As the students established congregations according to the New Testament model, the congregations would take over the burden of training and the need for the college would end. Obviously, it didn’t happen. Far from disappearing, the college my father attended grew and, during the 60 years since, has become a university.

Not only that, in spite of the fine words of the professors, the training they gave didn’t equip their students to train others. Nor did they give practical training in the establishment and operation of congregations based on the New Testament model. The men they trained, and the churches the men established after their training were, for the most part, incapable of passing on the training to the next generation. (At least they haven’t done so.)

Let me give you an example. Aside from some classes taught by my father while on the mission field, plus a few academic courses taught by ministers in local churches, I have no formal training in church work. The few courses I’ve had were mostly of the survey type, or doctrinal, and were very short on practical application. What I know has largely been learned through observation, self-study and by doing. When I and a few others established a new congregation where I served for while as an Elder, I was surprised by the sheer amount of administrative detail and the mechanics of running a congregation. Out of curiosity, I asked my father what he had been taught in college about the practical details of leading a congregation. The answer was revealing. He hadn’t been taught anything. He and his contemporaries were expected to go out and start congregations, but were given little or no information about how to organize the various ministries, how to plan the assemblies, oversee the finances or any of the other practical disciplines which are needed for a congregation to function. They were expected to somehow muddle through and figure it out on their own. Even worse, they were never instructed how to recruit and train other leaders.

Just for fun, I’ve looked at the current course catalogs of some of the colleges and seminaries. In all fairness, I have to say that there appears to be an attempt to address the lack of practical knowhow that my father’s generation faced. In skimming through the catalogs I noticed several courses on practical aspects of ministry. In addition, the schools also support internships of various types and lengths. All this is to the good. Yet, unless I have misunderstood, in a typical 4-year degree program of 160 credit-hours, only 2 or 3 credit-hours of practical ministry is required. I’m sorry, but something is out of balance when a program, whose stated purpose is to train people to work in the church, requires more time spent learning English and History than in learning the practical nuts and bolts of ministry.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me hasten to say that I do not question the motives of the educators. I respect their dedication in trying to train up leaders to serve the church. I respect and admire even more those in my father’s generation who went out with inadequate training to do a very difficult task. In spite of the shortcomings of their training, they started many congregations from scratch – many of which are going concerns to this day. As a result of their work, untold thousands have come to know the Lord.

Captured by the system

Though I think the college/seminary model is deeply flawed, there is no doubt that much good has been accomplished through it. It can be argued that had the system not been in place, the leadership crisis would be far worse than it currently is. Yet, the very successes of the colleges contain one of the seeds of the continuing problem.

The emphasis of the colleges in my father’s day – and it is an emphasis which is still present – was on turning out Evangelists. Now don’t get me wrong. The role of the Evangelist is absolutely essential. The world needs as many as we can get. The problem is that the role, as taught in the colleges, and as practiced by those so taught, is quite different than the picture given in the New Testament. In spite of lip-service to the contrary, many Evangelists seem to have forgotten part of their biblical job-description. As I understand it, the Bible does not contemplate ‘pulpit ministers’ much less the ‘pastor system’ which is so rampant these days. In contrast, Evangelists are to, first of all, evangelize and, then, set churches in order. Inherent in setting churches in order is the training and nurturing of leaders to take over the shepherding of the flock – including the speaking and teaching. It was never intended that Evangelists do the majority of the speaking or dominate the administration and pastoral roles of the church. Those functions were to be turned over to others so that Evangelists could concentrate on their primary task of preaching the gospel to the unsaved.

The colleges, however, have fostered the ‘pulpit minister’ syndrome. In practice, what generally happens, is that a preacher (Evangelist) either establishes a new congregation or takes over an existing one and is virtually the person who runs it. Instead of training others to shoulder the pastoral responsibilities, he trains them to be dependent on the services that he and others like him provide. More often that not, he is the one who appoints the Elders (or lacking Elders, a board of some sort). Since they are not trained to shepherd; since they have little opportunity to speak and teach (though Scripture makes the ability to teach a primary requirement of an Elder) they are often little more than business managers. If the Evangelist leaves, they are almost forced to hire another one to take over the pastoral responsibilities. It’s a vicious circle. This is one reason why I call it a systemic problem.

Measuring the wrong things

There’s another reason why the Bible college/seminary model of leader training has a systemic problem: By it’s very nature, a Bible college or seminary places a priority on academic attainment. If you pass enough classes of the right kind, you will, in due season, be issued a piece of paper which confers a degree upon you. This is often accompanied by ordination which declares that you are qualified to minister in the church. Leaving aside the issue of where the authority to ordain should reside, there are at least three problems with this approach. The first is that the courses offered may have little relevance to the spiritual disciplines of ministry. As an extreme example, I have heard that it is possible to obtain an MDiv (Master of Divinity) without taking a single Bible course! How could such a degree possibly equip anyone to teach and expound the Scriptures?

The second problem is even more serious. I have long suspected that there is little or no correlation between academic qualifications and effective spiritual leadership. In other words, much of leadership cannot be learned in the classroom. Conversely, a person who is gifted in spiritual leadership might not be equipped to succeed in academia. I read somewhere that roughly half of the founders of the mega-churches do not have seminary training. While I certainly do not agree with the mega-church model, shouldn’t that statistic tell us something about using a seminary degree as a predictor of ministry success? I recently watched a video of Malcolm Gladwell speaking at the 2008 New Yorker Conference. In his speech he talked about what he calls The Mismatch Problem. A mismatch occurs, he said, “…when the criteria we use… to assess someone’s ability to do a job is radically out of step with the actual demands of the job itself.” I would argue that we have such a mismatch when we use a Bible college degree as a selection requirement in picking our leaders. We all want knowledgeable and competent leaders. It might seem logical that requiring a degree would help ensure that our leaders are competent. But Gladwell points out an unpleasant corollary. By increasing the requirements we demand of candidates, we also narrow the field. There are fewer people from whom to select. The attempt to raise standards by requiring a degree may actually cause us to pass over the very people who would be best for the job.

The third problem, and this may be the biggest of all, is that while a degree may be an indicator that a person has a measure of knowledge in a particular academic discipline, it says nothing about character. The possession or lack of a degree will never tell you whether a given individual is full of pride or whether he is full of the wisdom which comes from above (James 3:17). A degree does not confer on anyone the servant spirit and humility which are the prime qualifications for ministry.

Sour grapes?

Some might wonder how much of my prejudice against Bible colleges is a result of my own lack of academic credentials? It’s a fair question. Am I against Bible colleges as a defense mechanism? Well, yes, at times I am sensitive about my lack of degrees. I’ve been hurt more than once by people who couldn’t see past my lack of formal credentials to what I knew or could do.

In another sense, though, my criticisms of the Bible college system has nothing to do with my own lack of a sheepskin. Quite the contrary for, in many ways, the academic life really appeals to me. A few years ago, my wife and I toured the campus of the Christian liberal-arts university where my daughter planned to get her degree. (No, she didn’t enroll in the school of divinity! Her major is writing.) As I looked around I realized that it would be very easy for me to fit right in. In fact, I would enjoy it. There’s a part of me which would revel in the learning environment and taking classes. I would enjoy teaching Bible subjects on a college level even more. I think I could be quite good at it. I’ve been asked more than once, by people who have taken my classes at church, whether I’d ever considered teaching at a Bible college.

My lack of a sheepskin has closed that door, so there’s really no use talking about it. But, I have to admit that it would be tempting if an offer ever did come my way. As a matter of principle, though, I would probably have to decline. While the motives for establishing the colleges were good, I suspect that, at this point in church history, the colleges may be doing more harm than good to the cause of furthering the New Testament church model.

What’s the solution?

“Okay, PresbyterJon,” you may be saying to yourself. “Now that you’ve told us all about how horrible the current state of affairs is, what do we do about it? What’s your grand solution to the training problem? What’s your alternative to the Bible college? Time to put up, or shut up!”

I freely confess to you that, at this point, I do not have a completely viable alternative. I can see the vague outlines of how things ought to be, but there are many questions which have not yet been answered. My father and I have actually done quite a bit of brainstorming about an alternative. We came up with a concept of several congregations cooperating together to provide training. The basic idea goes something like this: Leaders in each congregation teach classes in their areas of competency. The classes are taught on-line, or using other distance teaching techniques, so students can remain in their local congregations. The training of each student is overseen by the leadership of the local congregation to which he belongs. There are four academic tracks, one for each of the positions of church leadership mentioned in the New Testament – Evangelist, Elder, Deacon and Teacher. The local congregation evaluates competency and makes the decision whether or not to ordain. Though the goal is to train leaders, the courses are open to anyone in the congregation who wishes to take them. In this way, not only are leaders trained, but the general level of Bible literacy in the congregation is raised. (This is only a bare outline of the concept. The actual proposal is far more detailed.)

But, while the basic idea has some merit, I have to admit I am not entirely comfortable with it – even though I am one of the major architects. Aside from a suspicion that our plan is weighted far too heavily toward book knowledge, I have a gut feeling that we’ve overlooked something basic and fundamental. But what? That is the question.

Characteristics of a training program

Even though I am not totally happy with the training program proposal I helped create, and even though I am not entirely sure how to solve the training problem, I think I can say what some of the characteristics of leadership training should be:

1) It must emphasize character over academic attainment. A sheepskin doth not a leader make. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “…Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” (1 Corinthians 8:1 NIV) It is not academic credentials, but time spent with Jesus which empowers leaders (See Acts 4:13).
2) It must put a priority on practical application. Training must be taken out of the realm of theory. It must affect, and apply to, life. Note the connection between teaching and lifestyle in what Paul writes, “Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.” (1 Corinthians 4:16-17 NIV)
3) It must be centered in the local congregation rather than an outside institution. The New Testament assigns the task of training to the leaders of the church rather to some other entity (See Ephesians 4:11-13).
4) It must empower new leaders. Perhaps one of the greatest temptations leaders face is to retain power. But we will never be successful in developing the kind of leadership the church needs until we learn to relinquish. John the Baptist well understood this principle when he said of Jesus, “He must become greater; I must become less.” (John 3:30 NIV) Jesus, Himself, practiced the same principle when He told the disciples, “…I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7 NIV) The disciples could never have developed as leaders if Jesus had not empowered them. Here’s how I envision this principle working in practice: Existing leaders consciously work themselves out of the job. They relinquish more and more of their responsibilities to the people they train. During this period of time, the congregation has also been growing (a part of training is preaching to the the lost). When a congregation reaches about 125 or so, it makes plans to replicate itself. By that time the new leadership which has been trained is capable of either leading the new congregation which is formed, or the old one should their trainers/mentors decide to go with the new group. Then, the process of training additional leaders continues in both the old and the new congregations until replication can take place again.

An act of faith

Labeling this essay “Part 1” is an act of faith. Though I do not presently have the answers to the questions I’ve raised; though I, myself, am still groping toward a solution to the training problem, I have confidence that there is a solution. I can visualize the end result, but I don’t yet know how to make it happen. I can tell you one thing though, I’m going to keep on questioning and exploring in order to find a solution.

It is critical that we do find a solution to the leadership training and development problem. Perhaps there will be a “Part 2” and “Part 3” to this series as I’m granted further insight.

One of the things which made Jesus’ teaching so effective was His use of the ordinary. He was able to use the common and usual to illustrate profound spiritual truths. The truths had always been there, but nobody had thought of them quite that way before. Or, to put it another way, Jesus gave new meaning to ordinary things. Who could ever look at a flower or a sparrow in quite the same way after hearing Jesus talk about them?

Sometimes we become so used to our environment that we lose sight of the lessons we can learn from the ordinary. It’s only when we are confronted with a different set of circumstances that we realize just how blessed we’ve been. The following tales are adapted from some journal entries I made while on a mission trip.

Consider the source

“Water is one of those things we in the West often take for granted. Just turn on the appropriate tap depending on whether you want hot or cold. If you want a drink, take it right from the tap. As with most things out here, the water situation requires a shift in thinking. Unless you’re a local, drinking right from the tap is unthinkable, and risky even if you are. Fortunately, bottled water is plentiful and reasonably priced. Presumably, bottled water wouldn’t be so commonly available if a great many people didn’t see the need for it. But the concept seems to go only so far. We were at the airline office the other day to confirm our tickets. While waiting for our number to be called, I noticed that there was a water cooler in the middle of the room. I thought it was rather considerate of the airline to provide safe drinking water for its customers. What made me do a double-take, however, was the communal glass on top of the water bottle. Nobody seemed to think it was any big deal. Lots of people used the glass, seemingly as the usual and normal thing to do. Now, maybe I’m missing something here, but doesn’t using a communal glass, sort of negate the benefit of drinking bottled water? Especially, the same glass as people about whom you know nothing? Who knows what sort of diseases the person who drank right before you might have?”

In the Old Testament, God calls Himself, a ‘fountain of living water.’ (See Jeremiah 2:13, 17:13) Jesus also spoke of ‘living water’ when He promised the Holy Spirit to His disciples (John 7:38-39). If ever there was a source of pure water, surely that is it. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that we not only have to consider the purity of the water, but also the container from which we drink. How many spiritual diseases have I picked up because I’ve drunk from a container encrusted with bad habits, unsanctified cultural bias or unscriptural tradition?

Do I even consider the source from which I drink? The Apostle Peter warns that there will be false teachers even in the church (2 Peter 2:1). It’s interesting that Peter goes on to say that these people are “springs without water.” (2 Peter 2:17 NIV) If I’m not careful about checking out the source, instead of a refreshing drink of living water, I can easily swallow deadly poison.

In contrast, knowing the source gives confidence about the purity of the teaching. Paul wrote to Timothy, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:14-15 NIV)

A free gift

“Back home, if a faucet drips we usually get the thing fixed fairly rapidly. Out here I have seen faucets left running full bore onto the floor, for hours – to no purpose that I could see. One would think that in an area which experiences water shortages that there would be a public consciousness about such waste. But more than that, and even lacking such a consciousness, what I can’t understand is why such waste wouldn’t make a drastic difference in the water bill. In a poor household you’d think that every effort would be made to shave the utility bills down to a bare minimum. Perhaps they pay a flat rate no matter how much water is consumed?”

However, when I think about it, the running faucet illustrates God’s generosity. There is no shortage or lack with Him. He pours out His blessings on us without measure. God is lavish with His gifts. He pours them upon us. “…God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit…” (Romans 5:5 NIV) In the context, the pouring out of God’s love involves Christ’s death on our behalf. How could anyone be more generous than that? The Apostle John describes this love as ‘lavish.’ “How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!…” (1 John 3:1 NIV)

James mentions another aspect of God’s generosity. “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.” (James 1:5 NIV) What I especially appreciate about that verse is that God not only gives wisdom, He doesn’t begrudge it. He doesn’t accuse or find fault. He generously and lavishly gives what we need.

But what about the water bill? While Christ does tell us to ‘count the cost’ before deciding to follow Him (see Luke 14:26-33), he doesn’t make us pay for salvation itself. There’s nothing we can do to earn it or even deserve it (Ephesians 2:8-9). It’s Jesus who paid the price. “The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.” (Revelation 22:17 NIV)

Tepid water

Then, there’s the matter of water temperature…

“Mr. C. pointed out that water pipes aren’t insulated out here. Since water heaters are often located some distance from the place you want the hot water, this means you have to run the water for quite a while before it gets hot. Not only does this waste water, it also requires more of whatever fuel you use to heat the water.”

In the summer you have the opposite problem. Because of the long, unprotected water lines, you have to let the faucet run a while in order to get cool water. Combined with water shortages (there are lots of times when there is no water at all) this can make for some very uncomfortable bathing.

It’s interesting that Christ uses the metaphor of tepid water to describe us at times. He had this to say to the church in Laodicea: “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:15-16 NIV)

Hmm… The next time I can’t get the temperature right in the shower, maybe it would be good to ask myself what the temperature of my spiritual life is. Am I just coasting along, going with the flow, trying to get by with a minimum of effort, or am I really ‘on fire’ for God? Can Jesus stomach what I’m doing, or is He ready to ‘spew’?

The prayer of a righteous man…

(James 5:16)

I don’t suppose that any Christian would dispute that prayer is important. Yet, in the West, we sometimes view prayer with a certain measure of skepticism or unbelief. The whole concept of prayer, particularly intercessory prayer, runs a bit counter to the rationalism which has shaped so much of our culture. Many are more than a little uncomfortable with passages such as James 5:14-18. This is an area where we can learn from the faith of fellow believers in other cultures. However, when the Bible’s teaching on prayer has not been fully understood, or it’s layered on top of pagan concepts, it can result in some interesting situations…

“We’re often asked to pray over people. After the assembly where we spoke the other night a lady brought a bottle of warm water to me. At first I thought she meant it for me to drink during the common meal which was about to be served. Though appreciating the sentiment, I wasn’t about to oblige as the water was obviously not of commercial origin. Fortunately, the lady explained her real intent before I made too big a fool of myself by refusing something meant for my enjoyment. She explained that her children were sick. She wanted me to pray for them and, in addition, to bless the water which she would then give them to drink. No doubt the blessed water would effect a cure. Well, I did pray for the children but I did not bless the water. Since I am not at home enough in the local language to pray in it, I prayed in English. I really don’t know whether this poor woman, who was in all sincerity trying to do what was best for her children, thought the water had been blessed or not. I’m sure she didn’t understand a word of the prayer, so very well may have left with the impression that I had complied with her wishes. It was another of those situations, which seem to come my way quite often, which leaves you feeling rather foolish and uncomfortable and wondering what you should have done differently. Among other things, I found myself left with a theological conundrum: Granting the woman’s presuppositions regarding blessings, (which, by the way, I don’t) would a blessing counteract the effects of tainted water? Supposing the water to be tainted, to what extent am I an accessory to the crime of giving it to her children to drink? I don’t have answers, and I doubt that there are answers in situations like this. About all you can do, is do the best you can under the pressure of the moment. God have mercy!”

Pure water

“Though there are times when there are water shortages out here, there are also times when there is entirely too much water. A few days ago, we had torrential rains. Now I really don’t know whether the drainage is inadequate, the drains were blocked, or a combination of the two. But the next morning when we got near the place we needed to be, there was raw sewage running down the street. It was flowing up out of a manhole and covered the entire width of the street. There was no alternative but to walk through it to get there. Lovely. We not only had to walk through it, we got to smell the effluent the whole time we were there. Doubly lovely. As a matter of fact, we’ve had to walk through sewage several times to get to where we were going. You know, it’s really not surprising that people get sick out here. What’s amazing is that anybody is well.”

There’s a parallel between the situation with the sewage and a lot of the spiritual information and teaching that’s given these days. People sometimes wonder why I’m so persnickety about doctrine. After all, there’s a lot of truth in what we hear from radio preachers and what we read on various websites. So what if a little is wrong? What’s the harm? Well, I suppose that the same could be said about the sewage I walked through. It was probably about 98 percent water. It’s not the water that I object to, it’s that other 2 percent. It takes very little to taint or pollute the whole. In terms of total volume, by far the greatest portion of the sewage was composed of something good and wholesome. But mix in that tiny percentage of pollutant and it was transformed into something vile and deadly. In the same way we should evaluate what we hear and read not only by the amount of truth it contains, but by the falsehood that is in it. “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 NIV)

Scripture gives us two reasons why we need to concern ourselves with the purity of the message we accept. Peter expresses the positive side of it in 1st Peter 2:2, “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation…” (NIV) We grow when we feed on the pure and wholesome.

On the other hand merely coming into contact with some teaching places us in mortal danger. Jude writes, “…to others show mercy, mixed with fear–hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.” (Jude 23 NIV) We need to handle some teaching with the same precautions and care as we would the clothing of the victims of cholera or other highly contagious diseases – or which has come into contact with sewage!

In what sense are our assemblies a service?

Something has really been bothering me lately. Some of those who know me would retort that it doesn’t take much to bother me. Be that as it may, the pain has gotten bad enough that I need to try to clear my head by writing about this particular topic. What, you ask, am I blathering about? It’s that phrase, ‘church service.’

Definition needed

On the one hand, the phrase ‘church service’ is so common and wide-spread that I feel almost foolish trying to define it. We all know what is meant. When we use the term, we are referring to the time(s) the church gets together in order to worship God, partake of the Communion and listen to the Word explained. We use the phrase, in particular, for the meetings which take place on Sunday.

On the other hand, the more I think about it, I’m not at all sure what we mean by ‘church service.’ It’s not the ‘church’ part of the phrase that has me bothered. We all know (or ought to know) that the church is not a building, but the people whom God has called out of the world to Himself. But what I don’t understand is in what sense our meetings are associated with ‘service.’

Service to God?

Feel free to correct me but, as far as I know, the Bible never calls a meeting of the church a service. So, what do we mean when we call our assemblies a ‘service’? Are we really serving God when we assemble and, if so, in what sense? I have a horrible suspicion that, subconsciously, many of us have the idea that our meetings are some sort of meritorious work which will earn us God’s favor. If that’s the concept behind calling our meetings a service, then some serious re-thinking is in order. Didn’t Jesus have something to say about the people who thought that they could get into God’s good graces by their deeds of righteousness? Remember the parable of the two men who went to the Temple to pray? (Luke 18:9-14) The guy who thought he had it made because of his fasting and praying was not the one whom God accepted.

Even more dangerous than trying to win God’s favor is the notion that we are doing God some sort of favor by showing up and going through the motions on Sunday. Unless I’ve missed something pretty basic, God has desires but no needs. Even if He had needs, we certainly couldn’t supply them. “I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine. If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it.” (Psalm 50:9-12 NIV)

It is when we lose sight of the transcendence of God; it is when we forget how high and mighty and holy He is that we begin to elevate ourselves and forget that it is only through Christ that we have any standing at all. We might even do the right things, but they won’t glorify God. And if we are not glorifying God through the religious activities we are involved in, it won’t be long before we start to skimp on those too. Soon we’ll just be going through meaningless motions. It was precisely for this attitude, and the actions which it led to, that God rebuked the Israelites in the Old Testament. ““A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the LORD Almighty. “It is you, O priests, who show contempt for my name. But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’ You place defiled food on my altar. But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’ By saying that the LORD’s table is contemptible. When you bring blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice crippled or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the LORD Almighty. “Now implore God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”-says the LORD Almighty. “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the LORD Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands.”” (Malachi 1:6-10 NIV)

Instead of rituals, God wants our hearts and our wills. If He’s got those, then the appropriate actions will follow. “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6 NIV)

Perhaps things will be less confusing if, instead of calling our meetings ‘church services,’ we refer to them as ‘worship services.’ What’s the connection between worship and service? The two are mentioned together in numerous places, but seem to be separate things. I think it is fair to say that if we serve God we will also worship, but is worship a ‘service’? It may be. Hebrews 8:2-3 indicates that offering “gifts and sacrifices” is a part of service. And, Hebrews 13:15 calls praise to God a sacrifice. So, I suppose, it is legitimate to call our meetings ‘worship services’ – provided, of course, that we really are worshiping from the heart and not merely going through the motions.

Service to the saints?

Can we in any sense call our meetings ‘services’ because in them we are serving God’s people? Some translations have Paul saying in Romans 1:9 that he serves God by preaching the gospel. But the word ‘preaching’ is not actually in the text. It is supplied by the translators. Since Paul is writing to Christians and he goes on in verse 15 to say that he wants to preach the gospel to them, I suppose that we can say that speaking to the church is a service. But it seems a stretch to call the meeting itself a service.

Similarly, some translations indicate that Elders serve by overseeing the flock (1 Peter 5:2). But again, the word ‘serve’ is an interpretation by the translators. Other translations say that Elders exercise oversight. And, in any case, there is no direct linkage between the service of oversight and the church meetings. Again, it seems a stretch to call the meeting of the church a service. At best, it’s a time when leaders serve.

Service to one another?

Well, is it appropriate to call our meetings ‘services’ because during them we serve one another? After all, we are told to, “…serve one another in love.” (Galatians 5:13 NIV) We’re told to “carry each other’s burdens…” (Galatians 6:2 NIV) We’re told to “…encourage one another and build each other up…” (1 Thessalonians 5:11 NIV)

But this raises another question. If the reason we call our meetings ‘services’ is because the purpose for meeting is to serve one another, do we actually provide the opportunity for people to do so? Not like we should! Consider the typical scenario: We come in and sit down. We listen to someone pray, we sing some songs, partake of the Communion, listen to a sermon, listen to announcements, listen to another prayer, grab a cup of coffee and, then, go home. Whom have we served, besides ourselves? Whose burden have we helped shoulder? Whom have we encouraged? Whom have we built up? Have we even had the opportunity to serve one another?

Restructuring needed

As I think about all this it seems to me that the connection between worship and service is the best reason to call our meetings ‘services.’ But I would like that to change! Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our meetings really were a time when everyone could, and did, minister to each other?

In order for that to happen, we’ve got to make some changes in the way we do things. We’ve got to create an atmosphere and church culture which not only encourages, but makes mutual ministry possible. I submit that the typical assembly, instead of enabling service, tends to hinder it. I don’t pretend to have the answers. I don’t pretend to know what to throw out and what to put in its place so that each part of the church body does minister and serve one another. Perhaps part of the solution is to quit relying so much on the sermon and open up our assemblies to sharing and participation. We’ve seen some wonderful things happen when we’ve tried it. I don’t have the answers, but it’s sure something I’m going to keep thinking about and try to implement!

Concerning foundational truths.

It used to be that just about every English speaking person in Great Britain and the U.S. had a pretty good idea of what is in the Bible. Even if they lived their lives along totally different lines, they still had a general knowledge of Bible stories, commands, ethics and principles. So, when Wodehouse wrote, “I had been dreaming that some bounder was driving spikes through my head – not just ordinary spikes, as used by Jael the wife of Heber, but red-hot ones.” (Code of the Woosters) Or, that so and so was, “A bit like Balaam’s ass… If you recall, it too dug in its feet and refused to play ball.” (Much Obliged Jeeves) Or, when Mark Twain observed a comb which “…had come down from Esau and Samson, and had been accumulating hair ever since…” (Roughing It) it was a safe bet that everybody understood what they were getting at. It ain’t that way any more.

Bible illiteracy

It’s been my observation that more and more people know less and less about the Bible. That’s really ironic since the Bible is still, supposedly, the best-selling book of all time. I can’t help wonder what people actually do with all those Bibles they’re purchasing. Apparently, something besides read them. Even kids who grow up in Christian homes and go to church regularly don’t seem to know much about the Bible. I’m finding that I have to teach a lot of things that I used to be able to take for granted. That speaks volumes, not only about spiritual breakdown in the home but, about what isn’t being emphasized and taught at church. There may be more Bibles sold in more translations than at any time in history; there may be more church buildings being built than ever; there may be an explosion in the number of mega-churches; biblical information may be more readily available to a larger number of people than ever before via the Internet but, somehow, it doesn’t seem to translate into Bible literacy.

Teacher illiteracy

Even worse than biblical illiteracy among the general populous, however, is that sometimes it isn’t much better among those who are supposed to be teachers. I’ve heard several whose knowledge was neither broad nor deep.

But what is really disturbing is those teachers who promote unsound doctrine. Some do so through conviction, but others blindly follow something they’ve heard without studying it out for themselves. I question whether some even know how to check things out before they pass them on. Whether somebody has a sheepskin from seminary or Bible college seems to have little bearing on the issue.

To a large extent, biblical illiteracy among teachers reflects a failure of leadership as a whole. If teachers are incompetent it is because we in leadership have, ourselves, failed to instruct in sound doctrine and to supervise what is taught. We simply have to do a better job of teaching and enforcing the basics: those key doctrines, principles and beliefs which constitute the core of the Christian faith. To give credit where it’s due, this is one issue which the “driven” people try to address. If you’re familiar with the baseball-diamond metaphor promoted by the mega-church whose name begins with an S, you already know that they try to get people to sign onto their core beliefs through what they call the 101 class.

Aside from playing fast and loose with Scripture, which seems to be one of the hallmarks of the “driven” philosophy, there are at least two shortcomings with the 101 approach. The first is that they try to cram it all into one marathon session. There is hardly time to even state what the core beliefs are, let alone consider and reflect upon them. There certainly isn’t much attempt to show how the core beliefs and values are derived from Scripture.

The second difficulty with the 101 approach is that it is largely a one-way, passive process. People are asked to sign a document, but are not asked to state what they, themselves, believe. Because there isn’t much, if any, two-way communication or discussion of what is presented, it is more than likely that the 101 process will not uncover areas of significant difference between what the church states and the people actually believe.

Defining core beliefs

But before we can look at a better model, we have to answer a critical question: “Just what are those foundational beliefs which it is essential for everyone agree on and hold fast to?” An even more fundamental question is, “From where should we derive our beliefs?”

These days the concepts of absolute truth, and even reason, are under attack. But it seems to me that Post Modern relativism suffers from a fatal flaw. If everything is relative, as the proponents of this philosophy would have us believe, then the philosophy of relativism is, itself, relative. If everyone makes their own truth, then relativism is proven false for those who do not accept it. If reason itself is invalid, then its invalidity cannot be demonstrated by reason. In other words, relativism is self-contradictory. There really are absolutes.

Now if an absolute exists, it follows that our core or foundational beliefs should be derived from that absolute. I submit that the absolute from which we should derive our core beliefs is the Bible. When you stop and think about it, the Bible is the only constant we have. Everything else, whether it be church tradition, popular consensus, culture or authoritarian edict, is subject to change. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Matthew 24:35 NIV)

The Bible contains a great many doctrines and teachings. Which ones should we consider core or foundational? If you’ve ever tried your hand at writing a statement of faith, you know how tricky it can be to decide what beliefs are essential and non-negotiable, and where you can allow divergent views. Fortunately, the Bible itself tells us what the foundational beliefs are.

In chapter 5, verse 12, the writer of Hebrews chides his readers for their biblical illiteracy. “…though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!” (NIV) Then, in chapter 6, he goes on to explain what the elementary or foundational truths are. “Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.” (Hebrews 6:1-3 NIV)

Nine foundational areas

In this passage there is one implied, and eight stated components of basic or foundational belief. They are as follows:

1) The Bible

Though the Bible is not mentioned explicitly in Hebrews 6:1-2, our beliefs about it are certainly implied in such phrases as “teachings about Christ” (6:1). It is the Bible which teaches us about Him. In fact, the entire book of Hebrews presupposes a knowledge and acceptance of the Scriptures. Our view of the Bible will not only have a direct impact on what we believe about Christ, but also on all other areas of belief.

2) Christ

If our beliefs about Christ, who He is, and what He came to do are incorrect, then our whole belief structure will be skewed.

3) Repentance

There’s a huge difference between remorse over being caught and repudiating the wrong which we’ve done.

4) Acts that lead to death

Our society has redefined sin as a ‘mistake’ or an ‘alternate lifestyle choice.’

5) Faith in God

Popular concepts of God seem to alternate between a capricious, perpetually angry tyrant who is waiting for any excuse to fry the people He doesn’t like and a kindly, senile old man who is really unaware of what’s going on and would merely smile and pat you on the head if He did know.

6) Baptisms

The debate over the role of water baptism is one of the most important of our time. Since it is so closely associated with salvation, a proper understanding of baptism in water is crucial. Similarly, there is much confusion about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

7) The laying on of hands

Personally, I would not have thought of placing the doctrine of the laying on of hands among the core or foundational beliefs. Since it is included, however, a proper understanding of it is essential.

8) The resurrection from the dead

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is the central fact of Christianity. Paul goes so far as to state, “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” (1 Corinthians 15:16-19 NIV) Yet, the resurrection of Christ is precisely what many (for example those in the so-called ‘Jesus Seminar’) do deny.

9) Eternal judgment

It’s amazing how many people out there either deny that there will be a judgment or that the consequences of it will be eternal.

Competency testing

Once a church determines what it believes in the nine foundational areas defined above, how can it make sure that everyone in leadership or a teaching role speaks with the same voice in those areas? If I had my way, every leadership candidate and every prospective teacher would be required to write a personal statement of faith which includes what they believe about these basic things. At the very least they should be interviewed and questioned about these 9 areas.

Think about it. One of the benefits of requiring everyone to write out what they believe before they could lead or teach, is that differences in doctrinal positions become obvious right away. It exposes areas where candidates are mistaken, or need more teaching.

Another benefit is that it forces candidates to think about what they believe. It’s amazing how having to write something out, exposes the weak areas in our thinking. Many a time, the process of trying to explain something to someone else has forced me to re-evaluate or re-think what I thought I knew.

It’s also a good way to test someone’s ability to communicate. All of the leadership roles in the New Testament church, with the exception of the Deacon, involve teaching. If a person is unable to clearly explain his own beliefs, is he really capable of teaching in the church?

There’s another benefit, too. A written statement of faith is a great accountability tool. If, after being appointed somebody starts teaching doctrines which are contrary to the position of the church, the written statement is documentary proof that he either lied about what he believes, or has changed his position.

Basics curriculum

The passage in Hebrews not only gives us a way to evaluate candidates for teachers, it tells us what basics we should be teaching. I don’t know about you, but I think it would be an excellent idea to develop a class covering the 9 areas which would be taught to the whole church. I think it would go a long ways toward helping us be like-minded. (See 1 Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 2:2)

Presbyterjon’s foundational beliefs

“Alright,” you may be saying. “All this is well and good. But are you willing, so to speak, to put your money where your mouth is?” Okay, I will. What follows is a summary of what I believe in regard to the basics.

about the Bible

I believe that the Scriptures we know as the Old and New Testaments were revealed by inspiration to men who wrote down the divine message. I believe that the first copies of what we call the 66 books of the Bible (the autographs) are totally without error. They are totally true and to be believed. Scripture is not only still relevant and applicable in a moral and ethical sense, the texts are accurate in historical detail. Though minor textual problems exist, I believe that the texts of those first documents have been faithfully transmitted to us. With minor exceptions, the text of the Bible has been accurately preserved. While interpretations may differ, the text is trustworthy.

The teaching of the Scriptures is also consistent. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves. The God of the Old Testament is the same as that of the New. The teachings of the Apostles agree in all points with that of Christ.

The Bible, and especially the New Testament, is our standard of faith and practice. Though we can learn much from the Old Testament, Christ has fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Therefore Christians are not bound by the rules and regulations found in the Law. Any message or practice which contradicts what God has already revealed in Scripture is not from God and is to be rejected.

about Christ

Who is the Christ? He is Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, he is an historical person who really lived. He is not some myth or allegory. I believe that Jesus is “God in the flesh.” He was born of a virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus lived a perfect and sinless life. He was unjustly condemned to death by Pontius Pilate. He was crucified, buried and rose from the dead on the third day after his execution.

What is the Christ? The word Christ means “the anointed one.” In other words, God appointed Jesus to fulfill specific roles. One role which Jesus fills is that of the Prophet. To put it differently, Jesus is God’s spokesman. It is He who reveals God’s will to us. Therefore, it is incumbent upon me to follow what Jesus says. I must also reject any message from any source which does not agree with what has been revealed through Jesus.

Another position which Jesus fills as the Christ is that of High Priest. One task of the High Priest is to offer sacrifices for sin. Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sins. His sacrifice is perfect and sufficient. As a result, no further sacrifice is necessary. Jesus also fulfills the High Priest’s duty of representing us before God. He is our advocate. One of the implications of this is that I must present my requests to God (pray) through Jesus, or in His name.

A third role Jesus fills as Christ is King. God has given Jesus all authority as well as the divine name ‘Lord.’ Because Jesus is King and Lord, I must obey His commands. I am under His protection as well as His authority.

repentance

To repent literally means ‘to change one’s mind.’ In the context of the verse under consideration, it means to change one’s mind about the the things which lead to spiritual death. In other words, repentance means that if I had the chance to do things over, I would choose not to do the things which have condemned me spiritually. Repentance is far more than sorrow over getting caught. It is changing my attitude towards what is wrong. It is to repudiate my wrong. Without a true repentance, my relationship to God cannot be restored.

acts that lead to death

This is another way of saying, sin. Sin is anything which is contrary to God’s will. We are morally accountable for our sins. The penalty for violating God’s commands, which are wholly right and just, is eternal death – that is, eternal separation from God. In addition to incurring guilt, I become a debtor when I sin because I have not given God the service which is His due. Through the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus has paid sin’s debt for the whole world. In order to remove my guilt, I must die to sin, die to self and die with Christ in baptism.

faith in God

God is One. Though He is One, He exists as a three-fold Person. Within His being are the personalities of the Father, Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. God is eternally extant. He has no beginning or end. God is absolutely holy, righteous and good. He is love. He is omnipotent and omnipresent.

God reveals Himself to mankind through three witnesses. The first witness is that of nature. The universe which He has created, displays His majesty and power. The evidence in nature for the existence of God is overwhelming. Those who deny His existence do so not because of lack of evidence, but for philosophical or moral reasons. Similarly, it is far more logical to believe that God created the universe and all of nature than to accept that the diversity of life arose from any kind of macro or emergent evolution.

The second way in which God reveals Himself is through the written word.

The third way which God reveals Himself is through the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus embodies the character and being of God. If we want to know what God is like, we can find out by looking at Jesus.

about baptisms

1) Christian baptism. Baptism is administered to penitent believers. It refers to total immersion in water. Several things occur at the time of, and by means of, baptism.

Baptism is the point at which the spiritual ‘new birth’ is completed.
Baptism is the point at which our sinful nature is removed through a spiritual circumcision.
We become Christ’s, and ‘put on Christ’ at baptism.
Our sins are washed away in baptism.
We are given the pledge of a clean conscience at baptism.
We participate in Christ’s death at baptism.
We enter into covenant relationship with God at baptism.
Just as Christ rose from the tomb, we are raised to a new spiritual life from the waters of baptism.

Baptism is not an option. It is a command of Christ. It is necessary for salvation. There is nothing inherently spiritual or efficacious in the water or act of immersion itself (baptismal regeneration). Nor is baptism a work of merit which buys salvation. On the contrary, baptism is the catalyst for our faith which enables Christ to provide salvation. It is only after his baptism that a penitent believer can legitimately call himself a Christian.

2) Baptism of the Holy Spirit. On two different occasions God sent a special manifestation of the Spirit. These manifestations were characterized by the recipients speaking in foreign languages unknown to them and other paranormal phenomena. The first occurrence was on the day of Pentecost. The second was at the house of Cornelius. Both of these baptisms occurred in special circumstances and demonstrated God’s approval and acceptance of the previously unthinkable. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not something which is usual or normal. Every Christian has the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, but it cannot be characterized as a baptism.

the laying on of hands

1) During the apostolic age, special gifts of the Holy Spirit (such as the gifts of healing, prophecy or speaking in tongues) were given to individual Christians through the laying on of the Apostles’ hands. These gifts were important for the growth and maturing of the church before the completion of the New Testament writings. Now that the we have the New Testament, the gifts have been discontinued. Also, the gifts can no longer be imparted because the Apostles are no longer here to do so.

2) Leaders in the church are appointed (ordained) by Evangelists or Elders laying their hands on and consecrating the candidate.

3) Another practice which might be considered ‘laying on of hands’ is the Elders of the church anointing a sick person with oil. If the sick person requests it, the Elders are to anoint him with oil and pray on his behalf. When such prayers are offered in faith, illnesses will be cured and the sins, if any, which caused the illness will be forgiven.

the resurrection of the dead

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is a foretaste or firstfruits of God’s promise that one day all the dead will rise again. Both the righteous and unrighteous will rise. They will be given new bodies which will no longer be subject to physical death and decay. The doctrine of the resurrection is central to the Christian faith. If the dead do not rise, Christ has not risen either. If Christ has not risen, then our faith is useless and futile. Without the resurrection, there is also no forgiveness of sin.

eternal judgment

Both the living and the dead will face God’s righteous judgment. Each of us will have to give account for what we have done. None of us will be justified by our own actions, for all of us have sinned. It is only those of us who have accepted the sacrifice which Christ has made on our behalf who will be found righteous. What we do in this life, and whether we accept Christ, has eternal consequences. Those who are condemned at the judgment will leave the presence of God and go to eternal punishment. Eternal punishment does not mean annihilation in the sense of being snuffed out of existence. It is an active separation from God and anything good. In contrast to this, those who are in Christ will live eternally with Him. God is preparing a new heaven and new earth in which those whom Christ has redeemed will live forever.

Well, there’s a summary of what I believe about the basics. Where do you stand on these issues?

An alternate metaphor for creation.

No matter where you stand in the Creation/Evolution debate, I suspect that this entry will peeve the socks off of you. Here’s why: I am of the opinion that most of the debate; most of the arguments for and against; most of the evidence which is bandied about by both sides, is totally irrelevant. That statement, alone, is justification enough for people in both camps to want to crucify me. But there is method in my madness. Until you’ve had a chance to figure out what it is, please put your hammer and nails away.

Now, right off the bat, a bunch of people will jump to the conclusion that I think it is irrelevant whether we were created or merely evolved. I didn’t say that. Whether God exists and, if so, whether He created the universe and everything in it – including us – is a question of extreme importance. It’s not the question, but what is said about it, which I think is largely irrelevant.

A personal odyssey

While I was growing up, just about the only things I ever heard about evolution were derogatory statements about how stupid it was and how only fools would believe in such nonsense. I don’t remember ever being taught what evolution is or having a serious discussion about what might be wrong with it. It was just ridiculed. Therefore, it was quite a shock to learn in High School biology that evolution has a logic of its own. It is something which can be believed by intelligent people. It really does make sense – provided, of course, that you are willing to accept certain premises. At the time I was too uninformed to grasp the implications of some of those premises. Nor was I experienced enough to spot some of the logical fallacies and the faulty science which was presented. In later years, when I was sharp enough to spot such things, I discovered that evolutionists don’t have a corner on logical fallacy and bad science. Many creationists have the same problem.

I will say, though, that my High School teacher went out of his way to provide a balanced view of the whole subject. Partially as a result of my respect for the teacher and his even-handed approach, I went through a stretch of several years where I believed that God created the universe and got life started, but that He used the mechanism of evolution, particularly natural selection, to develop more complex forms of life.

Sometime during my early 20s the preacher at the congregation I was attending taught a series of lessons on evolution. Much to my surprise, he didn’t go into a bunch of scientific arguments to prove evolution wrong. Instead, he approached the whole subject from a philosophic and spiritual angle. He pointed out what the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary belief are, and what the end results of those philosophies are. Frankly, I don’t remember very many specifics of what he said. But that series of talks helped me realize that I could not ride the fence. There is a clear-cut choice to be made between two opposed and irreconcilable belief systems. The creation accounts in Genesis are actually representative of a particular philosophic outlook. Likewise, evolution theory is an outgrowth of another philosophic outlook. These philosophies or belief structures are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. You’ve got to pick one or the other. Though I still had doubts, I came down on the side of creation.

Several years later, as an intellectual exercise, I tried to set all my beliefs and prejudices aside, (as though that were possible) and take an unbiased look at the question of origins. In some ways I was reluctant to do so for fear of what I might find. As it happened, the results of this quest were very beneficial and greatly reinforced the decision I had made earlier in favor of creation.

My reasons for belief

There were several things which helped persuade me that we, and the entire universe, came into being through an act of divine creation. One was symbiotic relationships. The odds of one complex organism developing into its current form are staggering enough. The odds of two completely different, yet interdependent organisms doing so simultaneously is orders of magnitude more improbable. That there are not just one, but dozens, of these relationships in nature stretches incredulity to the breaking point. The most common symbiotic relationship, and one for which I can see no evolutionary benefit, let alone necessity, is the one between male and female. Both systems must not only work perfectly, but synchronize with the other, or the species dies.

Yet, improbable things do happen. I’m told there is mathematical proof that the highly improbable often does occur. Since anything much beyond basic math goes completely over my head, there is no way for me to check the proof. I’ll just have to accept it as accurate until somebody else demonstrates otherwise. Lest somebody trot out the lottery as an example of this occurring in every-day life, let me point out the fallacy in the illustration. It is true that regardless of the odds of any one person winning the lottery, somebody does win it. But to equate the probability of winning the lottery with the probability of something evolving is a false analogy. Assuming the integrity of the lottery commission, it is fore-ordained that someone will win. There is absolutely nothing which says that evolution will occur at all – unless you are willing to concede that evolution is predetermined. And, if something or Someone is there to predetermine it, there is no need for evolution at all. If something or Someone is capable and powerful enough to predetermine evolution, then there is no logical basis for excluding the possibility that that same something or Somebody created things as they are.

Reason 2

A lot of people like to ridicule the church of the Middle Ages, often unjustly, for holding back science. Yet there is one medieval belief which evolutionists doggedly hold on to even though it flies in the face of all observation and experimental evidence. It’s the belief in spontaneous generation. In order for something to evolve at all, the threshold between the non-living and living must first be crossed. That has always seemed an impossible hurdle to me. It’s interesting that in all the brouhaha about the experiments where some amino acids were formed by shooting electrical sparks into gas mixtures, most commentators failed to mention a few things. They neglected to point out that the experiments were made under very controlled conditions. Conditions which were very, very different than anything which ever existed on early Earth. They also neglected to mention that a few acids weren’t the only things produced by the experiments. They also produced deadly toxins which would kill all life. I won’t go so far as to accuse anyone of deliberate dishonesty, but it does smell of self-delusion.

Reason 3

For many years, I’ve suspected that life, instead of evolving, may actually be devolving. In other words, each succeeding generation is, on average, somewhat less capable and viable than the preceding one. Recently I came across something which not only bears this out, but strengthens my belief in creation. To illustrate, I’ve spent a good portion of my life dealing with audio. I’ve spent more hours than I care to think about behind a mixing console, editing and designing and operating sound systems. Along the way I’ve learned that editing and the tailoring of sound is a subtractive process. It mostly involves the destruction of information.

Yes, it is possible to manipulate sound, but only if it first exists. If it isn’t there to begin with, you can’t manipulate it. Similarly, once material is removed, there is no way to re-create it, even in theory, from what is left. There are many illustrations of this. I’ll give you but one example. That MP3 you’re listening to on your Ipod contains much less material than in the original. In order to fit it into a small file size, the audio is compressed. This is done by throwing away the (hopefully!) least important information. The process cannot be reversed. The information is gone and there is no way, even in theory, to predict what should have been there. This is why MP3s can never be restored to the full quality of the original. It’s also why its inadvisable to edit an MP3 and then store it again in the same format. Each time you do, you lose even more quality, which cannot be restored.

The same sort of thing happens in genetics. There are many ways to lose genetic information. In all the experiments which have been performed, no mechanism has ever been found that increases the amount genetic information. Where did the extra information, let’s say a horse has in comparison to a fly, come from? As far as I know, there isn’t even a natural process to repair or replace the defective information caused by mutations, let alone something which would generate the extra information required for more complex organisms to evolve from less complex ones. Clearly, something else is at work. I think it points to creation.

Reason 4

The thing which convinced me the most, however, is the fact that we human beings have a sense of right and wrong. I don’t see how moral sensibility, convictions, spiritual awareness and the concepts of ‘ought’ and ‘should’ could ever be produced through a process of evolution. It simply doesn’t make sense.

God’s dilemma

Now I’m sure that there are plenty of people who are more than willing to poke holes into every reason I’ve given for my belief in creation. They’ll point out that the data I’ve mentioned is, at best, ambiguous. I agree with you that there is no definitive and indisputable proof for creation, or even the existence of God. In fact, that is precisely one of the points I’m trying to make.

So then, if God really exists, why does He make us jump through all these intellectual hoops? Why doesn’t He show Himself to us openly? Why does He leave room for doubt? On occasion I myself, have wished that God would disclose Himself more openly. But think about it from His perspective for a minute. How can God disclose Himself to us without also destroying our choice of whether to believe or not? If the Bible is correct in saying that God desires our love, how can God receive it if He takes away the choice to reject Him? God wants our love freely given, not grudging acknowledgment of His existence.

Because God, if He exists, cannot manifest Himself to us without destroying our freedom to disbelieve, there will always be a certain amount of ambiguity in the data. How you interpret the data depends largely on the philosophical outlook you bring to it. For those whose philosophic outlook embraces the concept of God, the evidence for creation is overwhelming. For those whose philosophic construct excludes God, there is no alternative to evolution. Therefore the data must be interpreted to support that theory.

Digging myself in deeper

Along the way, I’ve noticed plenty of absurdities on both sides of the aisle. For example, I think there’s a fundamental contradiction at the heart of much of the environmental movement. Many of those in the movement are fervent evolutionists. That being the case, I have never understood why they get so upset at the loss of a species or three. If natural selection and the “survival of the fittest” really are the agents of evolution, it seems to me that if a species is eliminated, it only proves it wasn’t fit to survive anyway. The fact that people get upset about it says to me that something besides evolution is at work. They are protesting on the basis of moral conviction which, itself, cannot be a product of evolutionary processes.

Evolutionists also like to accuse creationists of taking a “God-of-the-gaps” position. In other words, the only reason we need God is because we can’t yet explain something. Given enough time (and research dollars!) however, all the mysteries of nature will eventually be explained. Once we understand the mechanisms involved, there will no longer be room for belief that God, if He exists at all, created anything. There are at least two fallacies with this argument. One is that it conveniently ignores the problem of how energy or matter came into being in the first place. Regardless of the mechanism by which everything has since been ordered and arranged, how did it come into being to begin with? Evolutionists have no convincing answer.

A second fallacy is to assume that because something could occur in a certain way, that it actually did, or does, occur that way. For example, it’s possible that I could enter these words by dictating them into speech recognition software. But just because it’s possible does not prove that’s how I’m doing it. Similarly, just because there may be a purely naturalistic means of obtaining a certain outcome does not, in itself, prove that the outcome was obtained by purely naturalistic means. Nor does the existence of a naturalistic process exclude the possibility that God exists or that He is involved in that process. On the contrary, if God invented nature, we ought to expect that much of what He does is through naturalistic means.

Creationists are not immune from absurdities either. For example, one of the arguments I’ve heard in support of the young-earth hypothesis is that the oceans aren’t salty enough. The argument goes that the oceans would contain much more salt than they do if the earth was older than several thousand years. While making this argument the creationists fall into the same trap as they accuse the evolutionists of living in – uniformitarianism. But how can you possibly know how salty the oceans ought to be based on current erosion rates, or the current size of the oceans, or the current rate of precipitation, or the current salt content of the earth, etc., etc.? You’re assuming that the rate of change has stayed relatively constant. But how can you know that? You can’t.

My biggest beef with those in the creationist camp, however, is that you are fighting the wrong battle. The creation/evolution debate is not primarily a scientific one. As I stated before, it’s really about philosophy, not science. The data will always be somewhat ambiguous. There will always be another scientific factoid which throws doubt on the proof you have just so confidently asserted. You will never be able to prove creation and, therefore, the existence of God as a scientific fact. If such a god could be proven he wouldn’t be worth believing in, anyway. If God exists He, by definition, must be beyond nature and, therefore, outside the space-time continuum we experience. He transcends nature and, therefore, transcends science. You will never see Him unless you look through the eyes of faith. If we have faith, then I agree, the universe is filled with evidence which points to God. But without at least an inclination toward faith, there will always be a way to explain the evidence away – until, that is, God breaks through His self-imposed curtain and every eye beholds Him. Only then will there be no need for faith. Please don’t misunderstand me. I agree that there is value in pointing out scientific error and teaching correct science. There’s no doubt that many are helped to find Christ by your clearing away some of the misconceptions that are out there. But never forget that science, even good science, is not the answer. It’s a spiritual battle, not a scientific one. As a friend of mine pointed out, it’s not really so much about evidence as it is about morals. When you get right down to it, most people don’t refuse to believe because of the lack of evidence, but because they don’t want to submit to God’s authority. They want to do their own thing.

I haven’t actually done this, but let me pose a couple of theoretical questions which illustrate just how slippery ‘proof’ can be. For the sake of discussion, if I were to ask those in the evolution camp to describe how the universe would appear if creation were true, I expect they would answer, “Just about the way it does now.” Similarly, if I were to ask those in the creation camp to describe how the universe would appear if evolution were true, I would expect them to answer, “Just about the way it does now.” Same end state, same data, two vastly different different interpretations. How you get there depends on your philosophy, not science.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now that I’ve managed to thoroughly alienate everyone in both camps, do I have an alternative to suggest? Well, ahem, yes I do. Hang on to those hammers and nails a little bit longer.

While giving a talk on Genesis, several years ago, a speaker posed an interesting question. He asked something to the effect of, “If a couple of days after God created him, Adam took his chain saw and cut down a tree, how many rings would it have had?” The point of that fanciful question was that if the Genesis record is correct, then most of the plants and animals must have been created in a mature or adult state. That concept got me to thinking. If, at the time of creation, the plants and animals appeared older than they actually were, is it possible that the same applies to nature and the universe as a whole? If, as many think, the six creative days of Genesis refer to actual days rather than eras, it must be so.

But if the universe and the Earth, in particular, are as young as Genesis seems to indicate, why would God make them appear older than they are? When I ran the idea that the universe might look older than it is by a believing friend of mine, he rejected the notion out of hand. His reason for doing so is that God is honest. To make the universe appear a different age than it is, would be deceitful. I replied that God hasn’t deceived anyone. In His Word He’s told mankind precisely what He’s done. My friend wouldn’t buy it, even though he believes the Genesis account.

It wasn’t until just recently that my thoughts came together in some sort of coherent way. I think I now have a decent construct to explain what’s going on. First, I’ll try to describe my theory in quasi-scientific terms, then by using a metaphor.

A graph for all seasons

Since it’s a little hard to explain my concept just in words, I’ve drawn some diagrams to help you visualize what I’m talking about.

Consider a disk. This disk represents a slice of our experience at the present time. By ‘our experience’ I mean not only our individual existence, but also the state of the whole world, our universe and the whole of nature. It should be obvious that the physical laws which govern this slice of existence are uniform and consistent. If chemistry, physics, thermodynamics and the like were erratic, or were self-contradictory, the universe, and we along with it, could not exist.

Now think of the disk as being bound, or defined, by several constraints. One of them is time, another space, another matter, a fourth energy and so on. I don’t claim that these are the only constraints – there may well be other dimensions – but these are enough to illustrate the concept. For the purists among you, yes, I am aware that these dimensions, for example matter and energy, can be converted from one to another. Think of the rim of the disk as a visual representation the transforms.

What happens if we extrapolate the dimensions out into the future? The laws of physics indicate that eventually everything will reach the same, uniform temperature. All motion will cease. The universe will be in a state of equilibrium. In other words things will reach a stable, steady-state condition.

This, of course, assumes that nature is a closed system. But what if it is not? It is always perilous to predict the future of any system which is open to influence from the outside, on the basis of its current state. If there is something, or Someone, outside of the system there is no way to predict from within the system itself if, or how, what is on the outside will affect the system – unless the outside entity informs those on the inside what it is going to do. In his book, Miracles, A Preliminary Study, C.S. Lewis provides a useful illustration of this concept. He points out that the laws of physics accurately predict the trajectory of a set of billiard balls. But the actual motion of a ball will be very different from what was expected if, while it is in motion, someone interferes by poking it with a cue. The laws of physics predict what will happen if there is no interference. They cannot predict whether there will be any outside interference and, if so, what that interference will be.

Now if God exists and He has created nature He is, necessarily, outside of nature. In the absence of divine revelation there is no way to predict, from within nature, whether and how God will interfere with nature. Fortunately, we are not totally in the dark. Assuming that the Bible is what it claims to be – a divine revelation – we do know how God will interfere with the natural course of events. Nature will never reach steady state. A day is coming when God will call a halt to everything. Nature as we know it will cease to exist. The predictions of physics about the end-state of nature are wildly misleading, even though the laws are perfectly consistent and accurately describe current physical reality.

What do the physical laws tell us about origins? Following the laws backwards in time, they indicate that all of nature originated from a singular time and place. Scientists call this point in space-time by different names. Some refer to it as the singularity. Others call it the big bang. (For purposes of this discussion, whether the dimension lines come to a sharp point as shown in the diagram, or whether they form a smooth curve as claimed by Richard Dawkins, really doesn’t matter.)

But we again have the problem that physics cannot tell whether and how something, or Someone, outside of nature may have interfered in the past. It takes divine revelation to disclose it. Assuming that such interference has occurred, then just as the laws of physics point to a very misleading conclusion about the end of nature, they also do not give an accurate picture of its beginning. Divine revelation tells us that nature never was at singularity as predicted by the laws. Instead, nature as we know it came into being by a creative act. There is no contradiction. There is no inconsistency. In order for nature to function as it does, the laws must be as they are. It couldn’t be otherwise. But it simply does not follow that nature had its origin in a singularity. We can learn very little about the actual age of the universe or our earth by looking at present conditions.

A gaming metaphor

Let me give you another illustration which might make things a little clearer.

Look at this ‘screenshot’ from a hypothetical role-playing game. A character, let’s call him Gus, lives in, and travels through, a virtual world. From his perspective the mountain in the background is many miles away. The comparatively small hills in the foreground have eroded to their current state through countless thousands, or millions of years. The road he’s walking on was built by means of a government public works program and took a decade to complete. The ruins he’s passing are the remains of a previous civilization which was destroyed 500 years ago.

Gus has freedom of action. He can make decisions and react to his environment. He interacts with other characters, and they with him.

There are several important points to note about this game: a) The game program and the rules which define the game are consistent and well-ordered. If they were not, either the computer would ‘hang’ in some undefined state or behave in some unpredictable (and therefore, unplayable) way. b) Though Gus and the other characters are autonomous in the sense that they can ‘reason’ and make their own decisions, their conduct is constrained by the limits of the program which defines their environment and what actions are ‘legal.’ In other words they cannot, by definition, do anything which violates the programming of the game. c) The state of the virtual environment in which Gus and the other characters find themselves indicates little, or nothing, about the history of the game itself. d) The rules which govern the environment and how the characters behave, do not predict accurately either how the game began or how it will end. e) The game is not a closed system. It is subject to interference by any number of outside influences. f) By observing their environment the characters in the game might be able to infer the existence of a programmer and a few of his characteristics but, in the absence of communication from the programmer, it is impossible for the characters to ever know him.

Now think about the parallels between this virtual environment and our own experience. a) Nature is governed and controlled by consistent and predictable laws. If it were not, we wouldn’t be here to contemplate it. b) We possess free will and, within broad limits, are autonomous. Yet we, too, are constrained by the limits of our environment. Nature is very unforgiving when we try to violate those limits. c) From Gus’ perspective those hills have been there for thousands or millions of years. In reality, however, the programmer built them into the program only last month. Similarly, to Gus the hills look many miles away. From the programmer’s perspective they are only a few pixels distant. Gus cannot even imagine the dimensions in which the programmer lives. If God exists, He is beyond our ability to imagine, let alone comprehend. Our environment may be to us as the virtual hills are to Gus. d) The rules of the game might indicate thousands of years of virtual ‘history,’ going clear back to the formation of the environment itself. It may also project various endings of the environment. In reality, however, someone booted the computer up half an hour ago. Similarly, the actual end might be very different than the projected endings to the game. For example, there is no way for any character in the game to know that five minutes from now someone will hit the computer’s off switch. Similarly, we cannot say anything definite about either the beginning or the end state of nature merely by observing the current state of affairs. In the absence of revelation, there is no way for us to know anything about its true origins or ending. e) The course of the game might be altered drastically by external input from keyboard or mouse. The characters within the game have no way of knowing when or if such interference will occur. Similarly, if nature is not a closed system, we have no assurance that there will not be interference from the outside. f) We’re like the characters in the game. We may be able to infer the existence of a Creator from what we observe about our environment (Romans 1:20 says that His power and divinity are clearly recognizable) but, unless God chooses to reveal Himself, there is no way for us to really know Him.

Do you think my metaphor is far-fetched? Have you ever heard of the a-life movement? (Sometimes also spelled, alife.) It stands for ‘artificial life.’ There really are a bunch of people out there who are trying to write computer programs which not only simulate life, but produce life. A while back I was browsing the shelves at the local library looking for a book on Java programming. In the process I ran across Creation: Life And How To Make It by Steve Grand. It was a fascinating, yet somewhat disturbing read. Though I disagree with the man that we humans will ever be able to truly create life, he was able to program critters which did show some of the characteristics of living things. (The program is called Creatures.) One of the interesting issues which was highlighted by the program was the right of the creator to also kill or destroy the critters he created. That’s a very important insight which I only obliquely implied in my game metaphor.

Solomon wrote that there’s nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). I was feeling pretty smug about my metaphor and how it makes my concept of creation easy to explain. I was congratulating myself for coming up with such a brilliant idea. Well, not too long ago, I was reading an anthology of Science Fiction short stories. One of them was about a programmer who created a virtual environment. The characters in the environment are alive and gradually develop the technology to make computers. They end up programming a virtual environment with, you guessed it, characters who are alive and able to develop their own technology. The author states in the introduction, that the story bothered him for a long time. He didn’t say so, but I gather it was because it suggests that we, ourselves, may be the product of Someone else’s design. Unfortunately, I didn’t make note of the title of the story, or the author. It may have been Poul Anderson. In any case, there went my claim to an original idea.

All ends well that ends (a summary of this long-winded ramble)

I began this essay by saying that I think much of what is said in the Creation/Evolution debate is irrelevant. The reason I think so is that I do not believe that origins can be correctly derived from observing the present state of things. If God exists, and He created nature, then the beginning must have been very different than projecting physical laws backward in time would indicate. We’re not in a closed system. Therefore, without divine revelation neither the past nor the future is predictable with any certainty. If that is so, then much of the debate is over non-issues. In the long run, arguing about science won’t prove anything. But, then, Paul said it long before I did in 1st Timothy 6:20.

Well, there you have it, folks. Now, if you must, go ahead and break out those hammers and nails.

Why do we have sermons, and is there a better alternative?

Those of us who have grown up in the church are so conditioned by the way things are done that we rarely, if ever, ask ourselves why we do it that way. Even those outside the church, but have grown up in a Western culture, have a mental image of what a church assembly is supposed to be like. There’s no doubt that the centerpiece in most protestant church assemblies, whether evangelical, charismatic, fundamentalist, conservative or liberal, is the sermon. But why? What’s so special about sermons and why is so much importance given to them?

Lest I incur the premature wrath of any preachers who happen to read this, let me hasten to say that there is a time and place for sermons. I give them, too. But I do question the emphasis given to sermons and the exalted role they have in the typical church assembly.

Preaching or teaching?

Before going forward with a controversial subject, let me propose a controversial definition. Typically, the delivery of a sermon is called preaching. It may be, but not necessarily, so. If you look at how the words translated ‘preach’ and ‘teach’ are used in the New Testament, it seems to me that they are used in reference to the intended audience, not the style of address. Though there may be some overlap, in most cases, preaching is directed to those outside of Christ, while teaching is directed to those who already belong to Him. A sermon might be the vehicle which is used in both cases. It is the intended audience, not the use of a sermon which determines whether we are preaching or teaching. I don’t expect you preachers to agree with me. Though we’ve never really discussed it, it’s probable that even my fellow Elders don’t.

So, why bring it up? For this reason: I believe on the basis of what I see in Scripture that, in Christ’s scheme of things, the assemblies of the church are intended primarily for believers, and not the unsaved. If that is true, and you insist on preaching to the congregation, you’re talking to the wrong audience. On the other hand, if your intent is to teach – because you are addressing Christians – you need to ask yourself whether the sermon is the best means to do so.

From participant to spectator

But there is another reason to question the sermon style of teaching which is so typical in the churches. Something which impresses me when I read about the churches in the New Testament is the interactive and participatory nature of their assemblies. In a typical assembly, the speaking was not done by just one or two, but by several. Instead of one major speech, there apparently were many short talks. Yes, I’m aware that Apollos was known as an eloquent speaker and that Paul spoke all night at Troas. But they seem to have been the exception and not the rule. And, I wonder if even those assemblies were not far more interactive than the ones we now know.

If I’m right then how and why did the change from the members of the congregation being active participants to largely passive spectators occur? There were many factors which influenced the shift. One was the rise of the hierarchical systems of church government. Along with this was the increasing split between ‘clergy’ and ‘laity.’ It gradually became a fixed idea that only the ‘clergy’ have the right to speak to the assembly. The Reformation recaptured the doctrine of the ‘priesthood of all believers,’ but we have never fully recaptured it in practice.

Another factor which influenced the change in the nature of the church assemblies was the rise of the theological schools. Preference has been given to the formally trained until, in many congregations, it is almost an article of faith that only persons with advanced degrees in theology are qualified to speak. Hand in hand with this was the shift from the Hebrew world-view of a covenant with a warm, caring God who dwells among and fellowships with His people through His Spirit, to the Greek world-view with its emphasis on power and an impersonal and almost mechanistic God. The first emphasized relationship, experience and practical application. The second, knowledge. Anyone can tell others what God has done for him, while only a comparative few feel qualified to speak of God and doctrine in the abstract.

But perhaps one of the biggest factors in the change which took place in the nature of the assembly was the move into church buildings. While there were some benefits, there were also two disastrous consequences from the move into large buildings. The first was that the larger the number of people gathered at one time, the fewer there are, percentage-wise, who are able to actively participate. There simply isn’t time for everyone to share their insights. Secondly, particularly in the era before artificial amplification became possible (most of human history), only a comparative few were capable of projecting their voices so everyone could hear. Naturally, precedence was given to those who were capable of doing so.

The foolishness of preaching

These and other factors may explain the shift from the many to the few, but why have we settled on the form of communication called the sermon? Why has the form of the sermon remained virtually unchanged for hundreds of years? Why are all preachers and speakers, regardless of denominational background, trained in almost identical techniques? Is it because this form of address is particularly effective? On the contrary, I’ve heard and read that experts say that the sermon as a form of communication is particularly ineffective. If that is true, then why do we put so much emphasis on it?

At this point somebody is sure to quote 1st Corinthians 1:21 to me where Paul states that, “… it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (KJV) I’ve heard it explained that though the technique may be foolish (according to communication experts) it is the method God has chosen to save people. No doubt many, have been saved by means of this technique. But contrary to the explanation given, I don’t think that this passage is saying that the particular technique of delivering sermons is divinely appointed as the means to save the world. Remember that definition I gave earlier? Preaching doesn’t refer so much to method of delivery as it does to intended audience. Also, bear in mind that translations other than the KJV (for example see the ASV, ESV, NASB, NKJ and NIV) refer to the message, rather than the preaching, as being foolish. That Paul is speaking of the message which is being preached rather than the method of delivery, fits the context of the next several verses. According to verse 23 the gospel is foolishness to Gentiles. Verse 25 contrasts God’s so-called ‘foolishness’ to man’s so-called ‘wisdom.’

Whence the sermon?

So, if the practice of delivering sermons is not necessarily divinely inspired, and it isn’t particularly effective at communicating, why do we use the technique so much? Well, for one thing, it can be a lot easier than the alternatives. At this point all of you who sweat blood over your sermon preparation each week, probably either want to lynch me or are laughing your heads off. But I’m perfectly serious. I’ve learned the truth of my statement through personal experience. I’ll elaborate in just a bit.

You want to know the main reason we depend so much on trained orators delivering sermons? It’s because we’re stuck in a rut that was carved out for us 16 to 17 centuries ago. There were 3 guys who lived during the same time-frame in different parts of the Roman Empire. In truth, the trend was there in strength long before these guys showed up on the scene, but I think it’s fair to say that they are primarily responsible for digging us into the hole we’re in. They are John of Antioch (349-407), Ambrose of Milan (340-397) and Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Do you know what the common denominator is between all 3? All of them were highly trained in Greek rhetoric (defined as the art of speaking and the principles of composition) before they began their ecclesiastical careers. And, they didn’t leave their training behind when they entered the church. John of Antioch is also known as John Chrysostom which means John ‘Golden-mouth.’ He supposedly was the most gifted orator in the entire Roman Empire. Ambrose taught rhetoric and had a hand in training Augustine. Augustine was arguably the most influential theologian in the period between the Apostles and Luther. His book on homiletics is still in use, and excerpts from his discussions on preaching are still quoted in textbooks on the subject. It is these 3 which set the standard. It is they who taught succeeding generations how to do it. We’ve never recovered from their influence.

Where did they get their theories and techniques of communication? Was it from the Bible? No, it was directly from the Greeks. They merely refined and perfected ideas which had been around at least since Aristotle’s time. Don’t believe me that preachers are still trained in the techniques and methods of the 3 men I mentioned and that they got ‘em from the Greeks? Browse through an older textbook on preaching sometime and you’ll see whether I’m right. I could name authors but will spare you. It can be rather startling to realize that the speaking style of introduction, proposition, divisions, development and conclusion that we’re all so familiar with was actually something which was developed for use in the Greek law courts. Is it any wonder that our minds often associate the word ‘sermon’ with ‘harangue?’

It’s fascinating to me that one of the criticisms leveled at the Apostle Paul was that he was a poor speaker. (2 Corinthians 10:10) While giving a defense of his ministry he admits that he wasn’t a trained speaker. (2 Corinthians 11:6) I understand him to mean that he was not trained in the Greek style of rhetoric which, in turn, was a reflection of the Greek way of thinking. Throughout his letters Paul challenged the Greek outlook and emphasized the inner work of the Spirit. This is the larger context of his statements about God’s foolishness vs. man’s wisdom, love vs. knowledge, strength through weakness, being exalted through humility and so on.

The purpose of the assembly

Aside from the concern that the sermon is really an outgrowth of a Greek world-view in contrast to the Hebrew world-view of Christ and the Apostles, I am of the opinion that by being so locked into the sermon we have lost something very vital. Let me try to illustrate what I mean. Just about any book on sermon preparation will tell you that the intent or purpose of the sermon (echoing Augustine, by the way) is to persuade. The majority of speakers seem to agree because, at least in the congregations with which I am familiar, it is almost inevitable that an ‘invitation’ will be given at the conclusion of the sermon. But what is the assembly for? Yes, Paul writes in 2nd Timothy 3:16 that Scripture “…is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” (NIV) and, therefore, if we are going to speak from the Scripture, we are, at times, going to try to persuade. Persuasion is inherent in correction and rebuke. But there should be far more to our assemblies than the attempt to persuade. Another purpose of the assembly is to foster unity. It is also for mutual encouragement and comfort. (Take another read through 1st Corinthians, chapters 12 through 14.) When we make something whose main purpose is to persuade, the centerpiece of the assembly haven’t we gotten something out of balance?

Alternatives

So, with what should we replace the sermon? Mutual interaction as was the norm in the New Testament church. This could take a number of forms. Here are a few suggestions: a) The sermon could be replaced with a number of short talks, or devotionals, each given by a different person. b) A topic or a passage of Scripture could be announced ahead of time and, then, anyone who wants to would be free to share his or her insights on it. c) The time normally given to the sermon could be spent offering encouragement to those in the congregation who are going through struggles, and praying for one another. d) A principle of Scripture could be explained, then the whole congregation could discuss how to actually apply it in every-day life.

Things which hinder

I said earlier that one reason we’re so locked into the sermon is that it’s easier than the alternatives. For example, planning and coordinating an assembly with just one speaker can be hard enough. But it can be far more complex if you have multiple speakers. It takes much more communication to make sure that everyone knows what they should do, and when to do it.

Another barrier to overcome is the fear of failure. What if you can’t pull it off? What if the assembly doesn’t work as envisioned? What if the various pieces don’t fit into a harmonious whole? What if you open things up for input from the congregation and nobody says anything? One virtue of an assembly based on a sermon is that it’s predictable.

Then, there’s the matter of expectations. The truth is that most people in our culture expect our assemblies to be based on sermons. A different format can be very disconcerting or upsetting to them.

There’s also the fear of interruption. When we get up to speak, we have a certain amount of material we want to get through. If we allow input from the congregation, it has the potential to take things in a different direction than anticipated. We might not be able to cover all the material we had planned on presenting. Even worse, an interruption; a question from the congregation might break our train of thought.

But the biggest problem of all is our fear of the loss of control. Let’s face it. We like to be in charge. When we’re delivering a sermon, we know exactly what we’re going to say and how we’re going to say it. The whole assembly is built around our message. We control what happens. But when things are opened up so everyone can participate, all that changes. The certainty is gone. What happens if somebody says something which is contrary to sound doctrine? Even worse (from our point of view) what if they say something embarrassing?

Some benefits of replacing the sermon

What’s the benefit to opening up our assemblies to interaction and participation? There are many. a) We expect people to grow spiritually, yet we give them very little opportunity to express themselves which is often one of the quickest ways for them to grow. Teachers always learn more than their students. It’s an incentive for people to learn if they must organize their thoughts and present them. b) Each person’s experience with Christ is different than anyone else’s. By sharing with one another, all benefit from the different perspectives and insights which are expressed. The congregation as a whole becomes more well-rounded than if it hears from only one or two. c) Problems and burdens come to light which would otherwise remain hidden. It also allows those with burdens to experience the the comfort and the support of the entire body. d) It gives people the feeling that they are part of the body. It gives them a stake in the success of the congregation. e) It gets people used to speaking about Christ to others. As they gain confidence from doing it in the safe environment of the assembly, they will feel more inclined to do it outside the assembly. f) We don’t get good at anything unless we have the opportunity to practice it. If we want to develop good speakers, we must give people the chance to do it.

Practical steps toward participation

It may not be possible to totally restructure our assemblies all at once. If, for no other reason, expectations will prevent it. People need time and teaching before they get used to the idea of participating. It won’t happen overnight. Some will never be comfortable with all I’m suggesting. Even in the congregation where I serve, we have not been able to achieve the level of participation I would like to see. It’s a difficult problem. But there are some things which can help move things in the right direction.

There’s one area where it should be fairly easy to increase participation. In the tradition from which I come, the Lord’s Supper (Communion, or the Eucharist) is celebrated each Sunday. It is preceded by a short meditation. Ask different men in the congregation to prepare and present these meditations.

Another relatively minor change which would increase participation is: Instead of the song leader and the speaker of the day always being the ones who pray during the assembly, have various members of the congregation give the prayers. In the same vein, you might be able to introduce other small chunks of content, such as Scripture readings, which could be done by various members.

If you wish to retain the sermon format, at least consider expanding the number of speakers. For example, one of the qualifications of Elders is that they be able to teach. But, in many congregations I have known, they do little or no teaching or speaking. In my view, they ought to be rotating through the pulpit.

If, for whatever reason, you can’t change the format of your assemblies, then consider allowing a time of sharing and interaction afterwards. For example, you could have a period when people could discuss the sermon they just heard with the emphasis on how it applies to their own lives.

If you can’t restructure your assembly, then restructure your class times. Assign short lessons and topics to various people. Announce a topic or portion of Scripture and open the session up to anyone who wants to share their insights on it.

These are just a few suggestions. If you really catch the vision of the value of participation and interaction, I’m sure that you will be able to think of many ways it can be encouraged which fit your particular situation.

It may not always be welcome. In fact, some will be downright hostile to the idea of opening up your assemblies to participation and, heaven forbid, not having a sermon. Even (or especially!) your fellow leaders will be uncomfortable with the idea. It’s likely that you will lose some people. However, I am of the opinion that the more participation and mutual ministry we have in our assemblies, the closer we will be to the New Testament ideal and the stronger we will be.