Category Archives: Church

HUMILITY AFTER HUMILIATION

Pat Nemmers is a pastor of a thriving church in Des Moines, Iowa. That church has planted several other churches that are also doing well. Pat is the father of ten children and thirty-eight grandchildren. No typo there.

Lest you think Pat’s life is one of blessing upon blessing, his wonderfully conceived Retractions: Cultivating Humility after Humiliation will quickly disabuse you of that assumption.

Pat’s book is an honest yet hope-filled book on the life of a pastor, husband, father, and friend. Honest books on the pastoral life are somewhat rare, but I am happy to say that Pat’s book makes a healthy triumvirate alongside Zack Eswine’s The Imperfect Pastor and Eugene Peterson’s The Pastor: A Memoir.

Pat knows joy and he knows deep grief. His first wife died in his arms while still in her thirties. He knows what it is like to have wayward children. More importantly, he knows the importance of submitting his own life all over again to the Lordship of Jesus.

This is an honest, searching, life-giving, and Christ-honoring book that you just might want to give to your pastor.

 

AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY: THE SO-CALLED BIBLICAL VARIETY

I could describe and defend the following seven statements at length but will hold off.

Various polls confirm the following observations. I am happy to know several Christians who have chosen a better way.

Many American Evangelicals are more concerned, even consumed, with being politically or culturally literate than knowing the Bible, the church’s history, and theology.

Discipleship, as Dallas Willard regularly declared, is almost non-existent.

We love resurrection power but have forgotten what it means to be crucified with Christ.

Too many churches tolerate unqualified leaders. 

J.I. Packer said the greatest need of the church is Christian education (he used the word catechesis), but few have heeded his counsel.

Many of us are confused by what the gospel entails, and fewer still share it with others.

We are gladly stuck in our tribes and echo chambers.

 

WHY EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY NEEDS THE GLOBAL CHURCH

When I first started reading this book, I thought it might be a good, but not great book. In the beginning I assumed it would be rather boiler plate theology and missions. Perhaps a good survey of the salient issues. It is that for sure, but it offers so much more!

In rather short compass at 171 pages Pardue covers a lot of terrain: how culture should be understood in doing Christian theology to how we Westerners can benefit greatly from brothers and sisters around the world.

After working through this marvelous book and taking north of 100 notes in the margins, I am not surprised that it won an annual book award from Christianity Today.

Highly recommended!

 

 

THE REFORMATION AS RENEWAL, CHAPTERS 2 AND 3

The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Matthew Barrett

Chapter 2: Spiritual Assent and Mystical Dissent

Chapter 3: Faith Seeking Understanding

Due to various factors, I am going to make these summaries shorter. I hope they clarify some important matters and motivate you to go deeper into the Protestant tradition. 

I will again be adding some of my own reflections…

In chapter 2, Barrett covers various monastic orders and mystical movements of the medieval period. A few thoughts…

It is all too easy for us Protestants to discount or discard all together the best of the monastic and mystical traditions. My two short, yet good recommendations to correct this problem are:

The Rule of St. Benedict and Of the Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis (William C. Creasy, ed.)

In closing out chapter 2, we must remember that the late Middle Ages was hardly a “spiritual graveyard, lifeless and full of darkness.” (Barrett, p. 69)

Chapter 3 covers one of my favorite topics: faith seeking understanding. Too many conservative Christians in the West are confused about what biblical faith is and what faith entails. Biblical faith is neither a subjective wish-fulfillment nor is it mathematical certitude. People like Augustine and Anselm invite us to appreciate that there is both struggle and increasing clarity that comes from trusting in God.

A seminal book for me, and one that I regularly recommend is: Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Newbigin makes a compelling case that many Christians view faith as almost mathematical certainty or on the other side of things, as simply a subjective choice.

If you are looking for a clear introduction to church history, I would recommend Church History in Plain Language, fifth edition, by Bruce L. Shelley.

 

 

 

THE REFORMATION AS RENEWAL, CHAPTER 1

The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by Matthew Barrett

Chapter 1: The Catholicity of the Reformation

I’ve had several conversations with pastors, seminary graduates, and other Evangelicals who are not clear about main features of the Protestant Reformation. To adapt what Howard Hendricks said on numerous occasions, “If there is a mist in the pulpit, there will be fog in the pew.”

The history of the Christianity is not often taught in our American churches, so it is no wonder why many Christians would see little importance in learning about it.

If you end up reading this book, here are a few things to keep in mind:

Read the footnotes. There are important things to pick up.

Mark up your book. Physical engagement is a boon to reading well.

If you are stumped, do a Google search, or ask a learned friend. If those fail to help, feel free to reach out to me in the comment thread of the blog.

Note well: I shall be adding several things from my own study of church history to augment and/or illumine the points Barrett has made in The Reformation as Renewal.

Let’s get started!

Defining Catholic and catholic

The subtitle is worth pondering, especially the catholic part: Retrieving the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church

Make sure to pick up when I capitalize Catholic and when I put the “c” in the lower-case.

It is crucial to get a clear sense of what “catholic” means. It means general or universal. So, all true Christians, whether they are Roman Catholic (a descriptor that Barrett seeks to avoid)[1], Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox, ought to be committed to the universal church.

I call myself a Christian of catholic and Protestant convictions. My use of the small c catholic causes both Protestants and Roman Catholics to be confused. Roman big c Catholic is decidedly what I am not. Protestant little c catholic is decidedly what I am. I’m sure we will talk about this again.

The Protestant Reformers Did Not See Themselves as Starting Something New

The Reformers understood that theological innovation is bad. They did not see themselves as innovators, but as faithful heirs of the church’s tradition. The debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics was not simply the Bible against human tradition. This is how it has been popularly understood: Luther and others were the Bible folks while the Roman Catholic church was holding to human traditions.

Tradition is actually a good and biblical word. It means that which has been “handed or delivered over.” One esteemed historian memorably said that “Tradition is the living faith of dead while traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”

The Protestant Reformation addressed several matters, but it certainly included debates over who was more in line with the church’s tradition. This may come as a surprise to many/most of you. Again, more on that in the future commentaries.

The Protestant Reformers did not see themselves at odds with the ancient or even medieval church. They were trying to highlight areas of doctrine, especially issues related to salvation and the papacy, that they believed the Roman Catholic church had departed from with both the Bible and Christian tradition.

Protestants are not Just Protestors!

It is crucial to define the word “Protestant” as it is widely misunderstood. Take some time to digest the following quote. It relates to Barrett’s footnote 21 on page 7.

Patristic scholar (=early church fathers) D.H. Williams offers much clarity on an issue riddled with loads of confusion:

The term “Protestant” is commonly used with a negative connotation. Everyone knows that Protestants are those who “protest” and dissent from Roman Catholicism. While historic Protestantism did indeed register a series of objections to Roman Catholic dogma and practice, such a definition is nonetheless unfortunate and even imbalanced for the reason that the Reformation was at heart an affirmation, a vigorous protestation of positive principles. A Protestant was, as the primary meaning of the Latin verb protestare indicates, one who seeks “to bear witness,” or “to declare openly.” Historically, Protestants are those who have sought to affirm certain tenets of their faith which bear witness to the apostolic message. John Wesley’s letter to a Roman Catholic acquaintance on 18 July 1749 offers a prime example of this when he defined “a true Protestant” in accordance with a series of doctrinal professions, each beginning with the ancient words, “I believe.” Wesley obviously felt it was more important to describe what Protestantism stood for rather than what it stood against. Not once did he tell his reader what Protestants rejected and opposed.[2]

Remember it well. We Protestants are not just “protestors.” We have many glorious truths to proclaim!

Are Protestants Responsible for the Secular Idea of the Individual?

As Barrett describes, there are Roman Catholic scholars who argue that the Protestant Reformation ushered in rabid individualism and chaos. As some Roman Catholics argue, you can draw a straight line from Martin Luther to the “my truth” of our relativistic age. As the argument goes, since everyone can be their own priest or pope, you are going to get lots of confusion in the Protestant tradition.

I am sure you have had a Catholic friend raise concerns over the thousands of Protestant denominations. It’s too bad that there is no one in the Protestant camp like the Pope who can be a theological umpire. All kinds of people are calling balls and strikes. Barrett’s lengthy response to this false claim is very well done. For sake of space, I will not summarize it, but Barrett’s reasoning is comprehensive and convincing.

I do have a few brief comments of my own about this common criticism of Protestantism.

First, some Roman Catholics focus the blame of rabid individualism on ideas alone. Those who advocate for Scripture alone (sola Scriptura), another very misunderstood notion, are to blame. More on the confusion about sola Scriptura in a future post.

Even if the idea of sola Scriptura was somewhat responsible for the rabid individualism among many of us Protestants,[3] it is not the only culprit. Carl Trueman highlights how those who emphasize ideas tend to forget how much material culture like cars have influenced the individualism of modern America.[4]

Second, it is true that the thousands of denominations raise concerns that should grieve us all. However, the Roman Catholic claim to offer a safe haven for theology and Christian living is mythical. Anyone who has studied Roman Catholic theology or even interacted with many Roman Catholic believers discovers that there is much diversity.

No, the Roman Catholic does not have official denominations, but there are de facto denominations. For example, Richard Rohr gets to stay in the Roman Catholic church even though he holds various heretical teachings that are contrary to the official teaching of the Catholic Catechism. Other Roman Catholics have no problem being at odds with papal encyclicals and other teaching on things like abortion. There are several public figures who don’t agree with the church on many matters, yet they still are welcome to worship as genuine members of the Roman Catholic Church. Many Roman Catholics are alarmed by these things, but the chaos continues. One Roman Catholic scholar who teaches seminary students preparing for the priesthood told me how troubled he is by this hypocrisy. He believes that only 15% of those attending mass are true Catholics.

The Gospel

Whether when teaching in Poland or here in the United States, I have met many Roman Catholics who love Jesus and place their faith entirely in Him. I also know so-called Evangelicals who are unclear about the gospel. Confusion about the gospel is not solely a Roman Catholic problem!

Some ideas that will be new to many of you are introduced in this first chapter. Those will be discussed in much more depth in later chapters, so I will hold off on my commentary until then.

[1] In footnote 91 Barrett mentions why he tries to steer clear of using the name Roman Catholic. He has good reasons for doing so, but I am sticking with it to avoid the confusion that might come from saying Catholic big C versus catholic small c.

[2] D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 173-74.

[3] Again, I would argue that sola Scriptura properly understood was not responsible for rabid individualism. Rather, it is the distorted version of sola Scriptura that far too many of us Protestants hold that is the real culprit.

[4] Carl Trueman, “Taylor’s Complex, Incomplete Narrative,” in Our Secular Age: Ten Years of Reading and Applying Charles Taylor,” ed. Collin Hansen (Deerfield, IL: The Gospel Coalition, 2017), 19-20.

TIMOTHY KELLER: HIS SPIRITUAL AND INTELLECTUAL FORMATION

I have read eight books by Tim Keller. None have been duds, but I certainly have my favorites.

Opportunities to interview Keller have come on two occasions. The first was on his book about suffering. That interview can be found here: 

Tim Keller on Suffering

The other was an exchange of emails about preaching. That exchange was published here: 

Tim Keller Answers: How Much Prep Time for a Sermon?

And now we have a terrific book on the formative influences that made Tim Keller who he is. Here then are a few observations from Collin’s Hanson’s wonderfully conceived book:

*Many times, God uses the most unlikely people. Keller’s awkwardness socially would not have made one think he was destined to the ministry we now know him for. By the way, Keller got a C in his seminary preaching class, not an encouraging sign that he would amount to much as a preacher.

*Mentors are hugely influential. Keller had several, but Edmund Clowney was one of the most formative. Clowney’s kindness, learning, and commitment to Keller reminds me of the role Ambrose played for Augustine.

*Keller’s ability to synthesize material, commitment to listen well to others, free people up to use their own gifts, but most of all, his humility, are things God has honored.

*There is no Tim Keller as we know him today without Kathy Keller. If you have a spouse who is a partner in ministry (I am graced by God to say that I do), then thank God for that blessing. If you are single and looking for a spouse, be diligent to find someone who shares the vision God has laid on your heart.

*If I were asked to list a couple of specifics that make a minister used of God, I would list true piety, humility, ability to keep loyal friends over the long haul, and courage. For the latter, Keller had a powerful model in a pastor who preceded him. He is a long-forgotten name, but you will be inspired by getting to know William E. Hill Jr. I’m glad Collin regularly brought in obscure figures who had a big impact on Keller.

*I mentioned above that I have read eight books by Keller. Making Sense of God is probably my favorite. I am glad that Collin gave some attention on the need to write such a book. My review of Making Sense of God is here: 

Tim Keller’s Newest

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN AUSSIE WHO KNOWS AMERICA BETTER THAN MOST AMERICANS

This is the third book I’ve read by this author. All have been terrific.

Sayers has a real knack for putting things in a fresh perspective. He effectively uses history and global trends to illumine the topic at hand. In this book, it is how the church can wisely address living between eras, what Sayers describes as a “gray zone.”

There are many invaluable insights to be sure in this book, but many times I found myself launching in a direction that the author probably did not intend, but I nonetheless found fruitful.

Highly recommended!

CHURCH SIZE: TOO BIG TO SUCCEED?

From my newsletter, “Moore’s Musings”:

For the first time I am taking a departure from the regular format for “Moore’s Musings.” In light of my previous comments about “megachurches,” I wanted to list some of my other convictions about church size.

Instead of sending this out two weeks after the previous “Moore Musings” I took an additional two weeks to gather my thoughts. Preaching regularly at a wonderful church outside of Austin also limited my time a bit in working on this edition.

I would not characterize my thoughts here as tentative, but perhaps provisional is an apt word to use. Tentative is too weak, but provisional underscores that my thoughts are still open to further reflection and correction.

I learn much from those who disagree with me, especially those who are gracious in doing so! By all means offer your pushback, thoughts, or questions. You can contact me either by email or post your comments on my blog at www.twocities.org. Your comments via email may be included in future blasts, but I won’t give your name unless you approve.

Away we go…

I have been thinking about the size of churches for many years. Since I have ministered in small, medium, and big churches, it seemed time to make my views more public. I believe the topic merits more attention than it gets. I should add that the recent scandals in several megachurches, as awful as they have been, didn’t influence my thinking below.

Here then are a series of miscellaneous and compressed thoughts on church size:

*I no longer believe the size of larger churches (somewhat arbitrarily set as 300 or more regular attenders) is neutral.

It is common to hear the argument that the size of a church is neutral. Size is likened to a baseball bat. As the logic goes, it is stated that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a baseball bat. Yes, you can kill someone with a baseball bat, but manufacturers like Louisville Slugger didn’t have that kind of slugging in mind when they made their bats.

I think size not only can but does present unnecessary obstacles that make being a body of believers much more challenging. How can a large group of people fulfill all the “one another” commands of Scripture when it is easy to be anonymous?

I have adapted the typical baseball bat analogy to highlight my concerns about big churches. Imagine having a huge baseball bat. Many are impressed by the massive bat. It effortlessly crushes homers. The person wielding the bat is very nice. Many on the field are in awe of the bat and the batters that are privileged to use it. Bats that big would change the complexion of the game we know as baseball. It would no longer be baseball as we have come to understand and love the game. So yes, I question whether thousands gathered together in the same place are still really “doing church.”

*I am keenly aware that small churches can have big problems, while big churches may have smaller problems. I have observed both. This undeniable reality doesn’t affect my concerns about big churches. Read on to see why.

*Small churches can have autocratic leaders who do much damage. Big churches can and do have autocratic leaders, but small churches may feel more vulnerable to tolerating a dictatorial leader since more qualified pastors are unlikely to be attracted to ministry in a small church. I have wondered aloud on different occasions why pastors generally (I know a few exceptions) feel “called by God” to move to a bigger church.

*Because of their size, and even more so if the church is not part of a denomination, smaller churches can get isolated and so make themselves more vulnerable to ungodly influences and unbiblical fads.

*I do have concerns about house churches, many times an overreaction to bigger churches. I have been very involved in both big and small churches, but never participated in a house church. My concerns about house churches mainly revolve around the problems of autonomy and their vulnerability to self-appointed leaders who are not qualified to lead. I have heard a few horror stories. I know there are some healthy examples of house churches, but I think their independence presents obstacles to the best kind of spiritual growth.

*With small churches you don’t have the structural issues that impede being known. A small church is not magically healthy simply because it’s small, but at least you don’t have to fight the structural challenges that come with bigness.

*Small churches don’t have structural impediments to reflecting the family ethos mentioned in the Bible. Like the previous point, small churches don’t automatically do this just because they are small. They must have godly leaders who are committed to functioning as a family. In some healthy small churches, I have seen all ages mixing in an organic way. I have never seen it done very well in bigger churches. In bigger churches you find specialty ministries that sequester the old from the young and vice versa. It’s why you have the sixty-plus old folks in Sunday school classes with names like the “Sunset” class.

*Speaking of specialties, Johns Hopkins University was the first research university in America. Many separate departments with their own specializations. Many good things have come from specialization. With respect to Johns Hopkins, their early adoption of more rigorous research methods in medicine thanks to the inspiration of European scholars, yielded many benefits.

Specialization, for good and for ill, has affected all areas of life including the church. It is why we put modifiers in front of pastor: senior, executive, associate, adult education, discipleship, evangelism, youth, and more. These areas of specialization dull us to the indispensable character qualities all pastors should have. C.S. Lewis wrote how modifiers can kill important words:

As long as gentleman has a clear meaning, it is enough to say that So-and-so is a gentleman. When we begin saying that he is a “real gentleman” or “a true gentleman” or “a gentleman in the truest sense” we may be sure that the word has not long to live…[1]

*Individualism is a big problem in our culture and in the church. Mature Christian growth does not come from being individualistic. Where is it easier to hide and be the person you want to be: a big church where you can be anonymous or a small one where your presence or lack thereof is noticeable?

*Big churches usually have a hodgepodge of unrelated ministries. A church I served in for five years had an annual “ministry fair.” About seventy distinct ministries of the church were offered as possible avenues for growth. We in leadership pretty much left it up to everyone to figure out where they should get involved. That kind of chaos with multiple choices does not produce mature Christians.

*I Peter 5 assumes the leadership knows the congregation and the congregation knows the leadership. At the big church I was at in the 1990s, the elders realized the body largely did not trust them. What to do? They decided to be greeters for a few weeks so people could get to know them. I kid you not. The relationships between the elders and the body did not improve.

Even if the elders are qualified men, how is it possible for them to know and be known by thousands?

*In the pastoral epistles, Paul assumes that one who is engaged in pastoral ministry is an elder. The interesting thing is that it is difficult to find “Bible-believing” churches where every pastor is an elder. I have scoured hundreds of church web sites. When all the pastors and elders are listed, it is almost never the case that all pastors are elders. Why is this if Paul assumes that all pastors are elders? I already knew the answer but decided to ask a few biblical scholars and pastors. The answer: the elders are typically afraid that the pastors will wield too much influence on the body. Fear of a voting bloc is the way some put it. And yes, it seems bigger churches are more prone to this fear.

*Larger churches tend to fast track membership. The large numbers seem to demand it. We had four weeks at the big church I served. I told the elders that an unprincipled Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness could become a member at our church. This certainly could happen at any size church, but when you have large numbers wanting to be members you feel the pressure to fast track the process.

Much more could be said, but this is already too long. If you have read this far, please receive my thanks, and do consider offering a comment or question.

Moore’s Musings is free, but tax-deductible gifts to Two Cities Ministries are most appreciated.

By Paypal at www.twocities.org

By check made out to Two Cities Ministries and mailed to:

Dave Moore

3721 Rocky Ford Dr.

Austin, Texas

78749

 

[1] From C.S. Lewis’s essay, “The Death of Words,” As quoted on www.cslewis.com/language-and-the-meaning-of-words.

MOTHER OF MODERN EVANGELICALISM

I already knew a fair bit about Henrietta Mears prior to reading this book. My familiarity was due to the stories Dr. Bill Bright used to share about Mears. Bright along with Billy Graham and a coterie of other notables, fell under the spell of Mears.

Dr. Bright highlighted various things about Mears but sadly failed to emphasize her desire to offer rigorous education to Christians. Mears believed it was scandalous that schools offered detailed instruction while the Christian education in many churches was haphazard and superficial.

J.I. Packer used to regularly say that the glaring need of the church was for catechesis or Christian education. I very much agree with Packer here and Mears modelled what this would look like.

Not only were thousands involved in the various Sunday school ministries of First Presbyterian, Hollywood, but Mears provided depth, ministry to the whole person, and engagement in all sorts of ministries.

This is a well-written and compelling account of Henrietta Mears’s approach to Christian education in the local church. We desperately need to listen to her today!