Make disciples or build the church?

Christians often talk about getting their friends and family along to church meetings, almost as if that's the goal of our prayers and efforts to share our faith with them. I want to unpick the thinking behind this a little bit. What does it say about our view of how God deals with us and what being a Christian is all about?

Well, first of all it seems to me that we're implying God only (or mainly) works in our church services. If we place particular importance on our non-Christian friends coming to church on a Sunday, doesn't that mean we think there's something special about that Sunday meeting?

Stating it the other way, doesn't it imply that we think God is not really at work in our day-to-day lives, as we work, play and socialise? Surely he is! If we're a follower of Jesus then he's with us all the time and he wants to work through us all the time, right? So we should pray for and expect opportunities to show Godly love to our friends and neighbours, to talk with them about our faith, and to pray with them. We can share the good news of Jesus with them in the midst of daily life; it doesn't have to be the pastor, the evangelist or the music leader on a Sunday who does this.

I've been reading and loving the blog of a guy called Mike Breen, who used to lead a big church in Sheffield and is now involved in an organisation that, in their own words, aims to 'take 30 years of learning from a very post-Christian England context, as well as penetrating Biblical insights, and come alongside churches and organizations who are finding the North American mission field more post-Christian with each passing day'.

Breen tells the story of the Sheffield church, St Thomas', in this blog post. Check out this excerpt which explains how they focus on helping people become disciples, followers of Jesus Christ, instead of focusing on making the Sunday service as attractive as possible to non-Christians:

St Thomas Sheffield isn’t a massive church and the center of a movement because it’s got the best worship service. Or the best digital experience. Or the best preachers/teachers in the world. It’s because everything they do is about making disciples. They honestly believe if you make disciples and release them to lead, release them into their destiny, release them to be Agents of the Kingdom, everything will change.

If we are great at making the disciples, church growth will never be a problem because to be a disciple means you’re a missionary. It was never OK for us to be a large church and have very few missionary disciples. So we built something where that couldn’t happen. Making disciples was in the DNA from the very beginning and it has just carried through.

It's all about helping people become genuine followers of Jesus, people who hear the word of God and do it. The best Sunday church experience in the world will achieve very little if we're not making disciples and empowering each other to do the works of God's kingdom.

Church services - why do we have them?

I thought I'd re-post this entry from around a year ago, about why Christians feel the need to have church services. What's the purpose of them, what are they supposed to achieve, and what sort of things should happen in them? Let me know what you think in the comments...




Genuine question here. Why do we have church meetings, the usually on a Sunday meet up to sing songs, listen to a talk and pray together thing? I've had this on my list of things to blog about for a while but I think now is the time, following on from an interesting chat I had recently with a guy on my theology course. We were talking about the tension between meeting together as a church to share our stories with one another and meeting to be spiritually recharged. I think it's like a bring and share picnic, which works much better if everyone brings something to share rather than a few people being expected to being all the food which they will then give out to everyone. Of course, there will be times where a particular person doesn't have much to bring, both with a picnic and with a church meeting. That's completely fine, but I don't believe it shouldn't be the typical way of things.

I've been thinking for a long time about how our rhythms of church can (unintentionally) encourage us to let our spiritual life drift between meetings. We look forward to the Sunday meeting in the hope of getting a spiritual uplift from the songs we sing together and from hearing great teaching from one of the church leaders. The same thing can happen with annual events like conferences; as the conference season approaches we get excited about what God is going to do there, perhaps forgetting that he can do just as much in our local settings.

It can easily add up to a Christian life that actually amounts to a few meetings per month and not much in between. Surely this is not how it should be, though? A question, then: is there anything about the way we do our Sunday meetings, conferences and so on that encourages this way of living? Someone famous (Albert Einstein, was it?) said that our current systems are perfectly suited to bring about the results that we are getting. Or maybe it was Einstein who said the same thing but the other way round: 'We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them' (I looked this up).

Maybe it's worth taking a step back and wondering why we have the Sunday church meetings. What's the point, what is supposed to happen at them? Firstly, I don't agree with the common view that we meet together to 'worship God'. Look at Romans 12:1-2; one of my favourite little passages in the whole Bible:

And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice – the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him. Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.

Our whole life should be an act of worship. Paul took the Jewish Temple language of worship and sacrifice and applied it to everyday behaviour, meaning that Christians do not go to a church meeting to worship. Our church meeting should be an act of worship but no more and no less than anything else we do in the course of our day-to-day life.

Why, then, do we have church meetings if not to 'worship God'? I want to share a few thoughts from 1 Corinthians 14, a chapter that has plenty to say about church meetings. In verse 12, Paul notes that the Christians in Corinth are 'eager to have the special abilities the Spirit gives' and he urges them to ask God for those abilities (or spiritual gifts; the Greek word is charismata) that will 'strengthen the whole church'. Paul then talks about praying and singing in the Spirit, which many Christians take to mean using a language not of human origin (speaking in tongues), but goes on to say this:

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than any of you. But in a church meeting I would rather speak five understandable words to help others than ten thousand words in an unknown language.

So here is another clue as to what Paul expects to happen at church meetings. People should speak words that will help others. And this theme is carried on in verse 26:

Well, my brothers and sisters, let’s summarize. When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.

Everything that is done must strengthen all of you. Maybe there is our answer to the question, 'What are church meetings for?' They are for strengthening and helping the believers. Forgive me for tearing a verse out of its context, but Ephesians 4:11 is relevant to this issue, I think. Here, Paul mentions five kinds of people as 'gifts Christ gave to the church': the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers (the last two are sometimes linked together due to the way the original Greek was written). And the responsibility of these people is to 'equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church'. So in our church meetings (and in all our interactions with one another; it's not just a Sunday thing!) we should be strengthened – built up – and equipped to do God's work. What does 'God's work' mean, though? Maybe I'll come back to that another time!

Team roles in Watership Down

In the early 1980s, psychologist Meredith Belbin published an analysis of the various roles needed in a team for it to perform its task most effectively. Around a decade earlier, in 1972, Richard Adams wrote Watership Down, a tale about the adventures of a group of rabbits. So well-characterised are the rabbits in Watership Down that I've been able to match the main protagonists to the team roles that Belbin identified. I think it works quite well for most of them. (The descriptions of each team role are from this page on the Belbin Associates website.)

Plant – Blackberry

Creative, imaginative, free-thinking. Generates ideas and solves difficult problems.

'Hazel', he said quickly, 'that's a piece of flat wood – like that piece that closed the gap by the Green Loose above the warren – do you remember? It must have drifted down the river. So it floats. We could put Fiver and Pipkin on it and make it float again. It might go across the river.'


Resource investigator – Bigwig

Outgoing, enthusiastic, communicative. Explores opportunities and develops contacts.

Peering through the blades of grass round his head, he could see the curve of a white back. Whatever the creature was, it was nearly as big as himself. He waited, stock-still, for some little time, but it did not move... [T]he idea of going back to the Honeycomb and reporting that he had glimpsed an unknown creature in the grass and left it alone was more than he could swallow. He turned his head and looked at Silver. Seeing that he was game, he took a final look at the strange, white back and then went straight up to the edge of the hollow. Silver followed.


Co-ordinator – Hazel

Mature, confident, identifies talent. Clarifies goals. Delegates effectively.

Late in the afternoon Hazel called everyone into the Honeycomb. 'I've been thinking things over,' he said. 'I know you must all have been really disappointed not to have got rid of me at Nuthanger Farm the other day, so I've decided to go a bit further next time.' 'Where?' asked Bluebell. 'To Efrafra,' replied Hazel, 'if I can get anyone to come with me: and we shall bring back as many does as the warren needs.'

There were murmurs of astonishment, and then Speedwell asked, 'How?' 'Blackberry and I have got a plan,' said Hazel, 'but I'm not going to explain it now, for this reason. You all know that this is going to be a dangerous business. If any of you get caught and taken into Efrafra, they'll make you talk all right. But those who don't know a plan can't give it away. I'll explain it later on, at the proper time.'


Shaper – General Woundwort

Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Has the drive and courage to overcome obstacles.

Soon he had become Chief Rabbit, having killed both the previous Chief and a rival named Fiorin. In combat he was terrifying, fighting entirely to kill, indifferent to any wounds he received himself and closing with his adversaries until his weight overbore and exhausted them. Those who had no heart to oppose him were not long in feeling that here was a leader indeed.


Monitor-evaluator – Fiver

Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees all options and judges accurately.

When [Holly] had spoken of his deliverance by the great apparition in the night, Fiver had listened attentively and asked one question, 'Did it make a noise?' Later, when Holly had gone back, he told Hazel that he felt sure there was some natural explanation, though he had no idea what it could be... Someone called out, 'What does Fiver think?' 'I'm certainly going,' said Fiver quietly. 'Hazel's perfectly right and there's nothing the matter with his plan. But I promise you this, all of you. If I do come, later on, to feel any kind of misgiving, I shan't keep it to myself.' 'And if that happens, I shan't ignore it,' said Hazel.


Teamworker – Dandelion

Co-operative, perceptive and diplomatic. Listens and averts friction.

Since entering the wood they had been in severe anxiety... Pipkin sat trembling under a fern, his ears drooping on either side of his head. He held one paw forward in an awkward, unnatural way and kept licking it miserably... [Hazel said,] Come on, Dandelion, tell us a story. I know you're handy that way. Pipkin here can't wait to hear it.' Dandelion looked at Pipkin and realised what it was that Hazel was asking him to do. Choking back his own fear of the desolate, grassless woodland, the before-dawn-returning owls that they could hear some way off and the extraordinary, rank animal smell that seemed to come from somewhere rather nearer, he began.


Implementer – Holly

Practical, reliable, efficient. Turns ideas into actions and organises work that needs to be done.

He was, rather, a stander of no nonsense who knew when duty was done and did it himself. Sound, unassuming, conscientious, a bit lacking in the rabbit sense of mischief, he was something of the born second-in-command.


Completer-finisher – Silver

Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Searches out errors. Polishes and perfects.

They found Bluebell by the hedge at the bottom of the field. He was white-eyed and ready to bolt. 'Silver,' he said, 'I saw a bunch of rabbits – strangers, Efrafans, I suppose – come out of the ditch over there and slip across into the water-meadow. They're behind us now. One of them was the biggest rabbit I've ever seen.' 'Then don't stay here,' said Silver. 'There goes Speedwell. And who's that? Acorn and two does with him. That's everyone. Come on, quick as you can.


Specialist – Blackavar

Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated. Provides knowledge and skills in rare supply.

In the days that followed – days of clear sky and fine weather – Blackavar proved his worth again and again, until Hazel came to rely on him as much as on any of his veterans... Now, free among these easy-going strangers, [Blackavar] saw himself as a trained Efrafan, using his skill to help them in their need. Although he did all that he was told, he did not hesitate to make suggestions as well, particularly when it came to reconnoitring and looking for signs of danger.


So there you go! Maybe the group of rabbits from Sandleford did so well because, among their number, they had all the different skills and characteristics needed to make a really strong, effective team. I just want to finish with Richard Adams' mythology of how rabbits came to be as they are; the blessing of Frith (Adams' god-figure) on El-ahrairah, the ancient rabbit hero.

El-ahrairah, your people cannot rule the world, for I will not have it so. All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you , they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.

Could you start a church?

I think I could start a church. How vain, huh? Of course, it all depends on what kind of church you're talking about! Read this account of someone starting a new church and let me know what you think. It's from the book I've been blogging about recently, 'Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens' by Neil Cole.

While doing some teaching in Japan, I had a dream that Heather, my daughter, started a church... I mentioned it to her just to let her know that she was on my mind and in my dreams while I was away. The next day she said, “Dad, my friends all want to do it!” “Do what?” I asked. “Start a church.” I told her that she would have to do most of the work, and I would coach and lead only a little. She said that was fine. The next day she arranged a house to meet in, picked a night of the week, and found a worship leader; flyers were soon being passed out to friends on campus.

I'd love to know what you think about this as an attitude towards the body of Christ. Is it marvellously adventurous and enterprising to just go for it like this? Or is it far better to gather theologically educated and trained people together, and also to get some oversight from a recognised denomination?

As I'm sure you've guessed, I think it's fantastic that people like Neil Cole's daughter, a school student, can start churches. There are risks with such a messy, almost casual approach to church planting, of course there are. But how wonderful that you don't need years of training in order to be involved in spreading the Kingdom of God like this! This is Cole's conclusion:

I... told them that I think Satan is more intimidated by this little church of fifteen high school kids than by any of those Godzilla-sized churches [that are widespread where Cole and his daughter live]... I showed them why I thought this way: “How many of you think you could start a church like one of those megachurches?” No one raised a hand. I asked, “How many of you think you could start a church like this one?” and all raised their hands. I asked them to look around the room at all the raised hands, and I said with a new-found soberness, “I assure you, Satan is terrified by this.”

I think you'd have raised your hand as well, right?



Post script – the church in China

I think a fascinating example of how Christianity can thrive when church is done in this kind of simple / organic way can be seen with what happened in China under the atheistic regime of Mao Zedong. Here's an extract from an essay I wrote while on my theology course last year:

Mao's Cultural Revolution sought to remove all forms of religion from China, with persecution against Christians including banishment of foreign
missionaries, confiscation of church property, execution or imprisonment
of church leaders and the banning of Christian public meetings.1 Foreign
missionaries were only allowed back in the years following Mao's death in
1976. Here is Hirsch's ['The Forgotten Ways' by Alan Hirsch] account of how their expectations and reality were poles apart:

'They [foreign missionaries and church officials] expected to find the
church decimated and the disciples a weak and battered people. On the
contrary, they discovered that Christianity had flourished beyond all
imagination. The estimates then were about 60 million Christians in
China... And remember, not unlike the early church, these people had
very few Bibles... They had no professional clergy, no official leadership
structures, no central organization, no mass meetings, and yet they grew
like mad.

Biblical words that we've redefined

Just a quick post tonight. I've been having a look round a website called Paths of Return, created (so the author says) as 'a kind of travel log of my journey in search of missing or forgotten elements of the Christian life'.

This blog entry caught my eye the other day. It lists seven words from the New Testament that the author thinks are commonly misused:

Salvation
Faith
Elders
Church
Deacons
Preach
Pastor

Those of you who know me well have probably heard me go on about some of these words, and how our modern usage is a long way from what the words meant in New Testament times. I won't do a big copy-paste from the Paths of Return blog (I think doing that is a bit rude) but do have a look and see what you make of it.

More on spiritual fitness – how does it happen?

I posted a couple of weeks ago about some sessions we're having on my course that are about Christian virtue, or developing Godly character. Personally, I think this is one of the key roles of every church; how does the church (meaning the entire group of people that comprise that community) encourage and enable its members to grow in Godliness? But can we plan for it, or do people just naturally become more virtuous if they are part of a healthy Christian community?

I don't think it does just happen naturally. Certainly, I think we could develop our Christian character a lot more with consciously-planned activities, materials and support systems. I'm with Dallas Willard (again...) on this one. In a passage from page 344 of The Divine Conspiracy noting the lack of intentional, planned discipleship in churches, he says this:

Imagine, if you can, discovering in your church newsletter or bulletin an announcement of a six-week seminar on how genuinely to bless someone who is spitting you... Or suppose the announced seminar was on how to live without purposely indulged lust or covetousness. Or on how to quit condemning the people around you. Or on how to be free of anger and all its complications.

Willard goes on to invite the reader to imagine a church sign that says 'We Teach All Who Seriously Commit Themselves to Jesus How to Do Everything He Said to Do'. Isn't that what our churches should be all about?

Spiritual fitness

We had a lecture about 'Christian virtue' at my theology course session last night. What's Christian virtue, I hear you ask... Well, the definition we were given for 'virtue' is basically 'good character', so Christian virtue just means a Christian understanding of what good character is.

Yesterday's lecture was an introduction to the topic of Christian virtue and next week we'll be moving on to look at the church's role in developing it, helping us to become better people. We were left last night with the analogy of churches being like gyms: just as gyms help us develop physical fitness so churches should help us develop spiritual fitness; that is, Christian virtue. I'll look at this in a bit more detail in a moment, but I should just say that I'd change the analogy slightly. I'd say our churches should be like fitness clubs, rather than gyms. A gym is a building and churches are communities, not buildings. So something like a fitness club (which still meets a gym but is more obviously about the people) works a bit better for this analogy, I think.

Let's have a bit of Bible to illustrate what we're talking about with Christian virtue, from Galatians 5 and 2 Peter 1:

But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!

By his divine power, God has given us everything we need for living a godly life. We have received all of this by coming to know him, the one who called us to himself by means of his marvelous glory and excellence. And because of his glory and excellence, he has given us great and precious promises. These are the promises that enable you to share his divine nature and escape the world’s corruption caused by human desires.

In view of all this, make every effort to respond to God’s promises. Supplement your faith with a generous provision of moral excellence, and moral excellence with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with patient endurance, and patient endurance with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love for everyone. The more you grow like this, the more productive and useful you will be in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So Christian virtue is not about academic learning, spiritual experiences, social action or correct behaviour, good and important though all these things are. These good things should all flow out of our good character, our virtue:

Does a spring of water bubble out with both fresh water and bitter water? Does a fig tree produce olives, or a grapevine produce figs? No, and you can’t draw fresh water from a salty spring.

Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.

All of this leads me to wonder how good a job our church meetings, structures and programmes are doing at developing this good character, this Christian virtue in us. I blogged a couple months ago about church meetings and this was my conclusion back then:

So in our church meetings (and in all our interactions with one another; it's not just a Sunday thing!) we should be strengthened – built up – and equipped to do God's work.

I'd like to add to this a little bit, in the light of our lecture yesterday. And that's to say how we are equipped to do God's work: we are equipped by being transformed into people of good Christian character, people full of 'love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control'.

Dallas Willard (whom I have mentioned in the past) says this:

There is now lacking a serious and expectant intention to bring Jesus' people into obedience and abundance through training... Somehow the seriously thought out intention – not just a vague idea or wish – to actually bring about the fullness of life in Christ must be re-established.

Do you think he's got a point?

I am starting a new thing

My friend Rob and I have started a new house group, with our second meeting coming up this evening. How did this happen – I never start new things! It's all very odd but also rather exciting... We've got two slightly unusual things in mind with the group, so it is very much an experiment. Firstly, our plan is that everyone in the group will be expected to contribute their ideas and thoughts for what we should do. It won't just be up to Rob and me as the group's founders. And secondly, we have in mind that most of the meetings will be pretty spontaneous, with everyone sharing in whatever way they like from their ongoing life with God. We want to give God as much space as we possibly can to do whatever it is that he wants to each week.

Rob's been involved in something quite a lot like this before but I've only led a few short sessions, not a proper house group. So this is all new for me – who knows how it will turn out? There's only Rob and me at the moment but we'll be chatting to people at the Sunday church meetings and getting something on the church website and places like that. If you're in Southampton Vineyard or you just live in the Southampton area then do get in touch with me to find out more. I'm on Facebook so send me a message, or email the church. We'd love to hear from you! And wish us well...

Full-time Christian work

What do you understand by that phrase, then; 'full-time Christian work'? I went for a walk round Lepe with a good friend the other day and we were talking about this, as it's relevant to his life situation at the moment. I suppose if someone gets described as a full-time Christian worker most people would think of things like youth work, church leadership or missionary work. What it really means is that the person works for a Christian organisation. And that's fine, isn't it? It's quite a useful short-cut phrase.

But I think there can be a problem when we treat church-based work as somehow better or more holy than other kinds of work. Or when we celebrate 'Christian workers' in a way that we don't extend to those in sales, catering, retail, nursing or whatever. Now I don't mean to downplay what people like pastors and church administrators do, not at all. But maybe we should give equal credit, praise and support to the majority of us who don't have so-called Christian jobs. In my view, we have just as big a part to play in doing God's work (I said I'd explain what I meant by that, didn't I? Soon...).

So this conversation with my mate was a few days ago, and then yesterday I saw something about exactly this issue on a blog run by some American folks involved in various churches, universities and Christian magazines. The full post is here and I've picked out a few points below:

Here’s the problem – when we call people to radical Christian activism, we tend to define what qualifies as “radical” very narrowly. Radical is moving overseas to rescue orphans. Radical is not being an attorney for the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. Radical is leaving your medical practice to vaccinate refugees in Sudan. Radical is not taking care of young children at home in the suburbs. Radical is planting a church in Detroit. Radical is not working on an assembly line.

Paul [in 1 Corinthians 7] wanted to draw the Corinthians’ attention away from their circumstances and emphasize that the full Christian life could be lived anywhere by anyone if lived in deep communion with God. Do we really believe that? Really? Os Guinness reminds us that, “First and foremost we are called to Someone, not to something or to somewhere.” We should remember that the word radical is from Latin meaning “root.” If our lives are rooted in a continual communion with God, then every person’s life, no matter how mundane, is elevated to sacred heights – including a suburban mom’s, the office worker’s, and the EPA attorney’s. And it’s not just radical when they behave like a missionary or social activist in their free time. Even working the assembly line becomes a holy activity when done “with God.”

Paul... did not measure maturity or commitment to Christ based on how “radical” a life appeared on the outside, or the visible impact a person made either missionally or socially. These activities are good and important, don’t misunderstand me, but they are not the center of the Christian life. Rather maturity was seen by the depth of a person’s union with Christ. The truly radical life is the one intimately rooted in communion with God, through Christ, in the Spirit, and that responds obediently to his call – whatever it may be.

So I’ve come to embrace the reality that my place as a church leader is not to get people to do more for God. Rather, I believe my responsibility is to give others a ravishing vision, rooted in Scripture and modeled by my own example, of a life lived in communion with God. And there, as they abide in him, calling will happen. The Lord of the harvest will call and send workers. And he will call others to live quietly and work with their hands. Some may be butchers, and others lawyers, and some he will even call to be suburban moms. And all of their work will be holy, good, and, if rooted in communion with God, truly radical.

There's such an important message in that last paragraph, I think. Our churches should be communities where we are encouraged (and ourselves encourage others) to seek ever greater closeness with God, which does not mean being urged to do more activity. A healthy and sustainable desire to do more for God will gradually spring from a life of greater communion with our Lord. Dare I suggest that putting the activity ahead of the relationship is a form of idolatry?


To finish off, writing this has just reminded me of a talk I heard at New Wine a few years ago by Mark Greene, big-time workplace mission man and author of 'Thank God it's Monday'. I don't remember anything specific from the talk but what is still clear in my mind is that he gave everyone a red and white badge with the letters FTCW on it (just like that one up there). Full Time Christian Worker... God calls all of his children to be full-time workers for his kingdom, to make his will done on earth as it is in heaven. Are you in?

What's the point of church services?

Genuine question here. Why do we have church meetings, the usually on a Sunday meet up to sing songs, listen to a talk and pray together thing? I've had this on my list of things to blog about for a while but I think now is the time, following on from an interesting chat I had recently with a guy on my theology course. We were talking about the tension between meeting together as a church to share our stories with one another and meeting to be spiritually recharged. I think it's like a bring and share picnic, which works much better if everyone brings something to share rather than a few people being expected to being all the food which they will then give out to everyone. Of course, there will be times where a particular person doesn't have much to bring, both with a picnic and with a church meeting. That's completely fine, but I don't believe it shouldn't be the typical way of things.

I've been thinking for a long time about how our rhythms of church can (unintentionally) encourage us to let our spiritual life drift between meetings. We look forward to the Sunday meeting in the hope of getting a spiritual uplift from the songs we sing together and from hearing great teaching from one of the church leaders. The same thing can happen with annual events like conferences; as the conference season approaches we get excited about what God is going to do there, perhaps forgetting that he can do just as much in our local settings.

It can easily add up to a Christian life that actually amounts to a few meetings per month and not much in between. Surely this is not how it should be, though? A question, then: is there anything about the way we do our Sunday meetings, conferences and so on that encourages this way of living? Someone famous (Albert Einstein, was it?) said that our current systems are perfectly suited to bring about the results that we are getting. Or maybe it was Einstein who said the same thing but the other way round: 'We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them' (I looked this up).

Maybe it's worth taking a step back and wondering why we have the Sunday church meetings. What's the point, what is supposed to happen at them? Firstly, I don't agree with the common view that we meet together to 'worship God'. Look at Romans 12:1-2; one of my favourite little passages in the whole Bible:

And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice – the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him. Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.

Our whole life should be an act of worship. Paul took the Jewish Temple language of worship and sacrifice and applied it to everyday behaviour, meaning that Christians do not go to a church meeting to worship. Our church meeting should be an act of worship but no more and no less than anything else we do in the course of our day-to-day life.

Why, then, do we have church meetings if not to 'worship God'? I want to share a few thoughts from 1 Corinthians 14, a chapter that has plenty to say about church meetings. In verse 12, Paul notes that the Christians in Corinth are 'eager to have the special abilities the Spirit gives' and he urges them to ask God for those abilities (or spiritual gifts; the Greek word is charismata) that will 'strengthen the whole church'. Paul then talks about praying and singing in the Spirit, which many Christians take to mean using a language not of human origin (speaking in tongues), but goes on to say this:

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than any of you. But in a church meeting I would rather speak five understandable words to help others than ten thousand words in an unknown language.

So here is another clue as to what Paul expects to happen at church meetings. People should speak words that will help others. And this theme is carried on in verse 26:

Well, my brothers and sisters, let’s summarize. When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.

Everything that is done must strengthen all of you. Maybe there is our answer to the question, 'What are church meetings for?' They are for strengthening and helping the believers. Forgive me for tearing a verse out of its context, but Ephesians 4:11 is relevant to this issue, I think. Here, Paul mentions five kinds of people as 'gifts Christ gave to the church': the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers (the last two are sometimes linked together due to the way the original Greek was written). And the responsibility of these people is to 'equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church'. So in our church meetings (and in all our interactions with one another; it's not just a Sunday thing!) we should be strengthened – built up – and equipped to do God's work. What does 'God's work' mean, though? Maybe I'll come back to that another time!

Looking at the leadership of Moses and other Old Testament figures

In a recent session on my theology course we looked at lessons we could draw from the life and leadership practices of Moses. The session leader picked out three key questions that are vital for leaders to keep in mind, lest they get mired in the details of their role and lose sight of why they are leading. Here are the questions:

Lessons from the life of Moses
Who am I? This is about our identity, which will feed in to what we do and how we do it. We see Moses wrestling with his identity in Exodus 2:11-15 when he sees an Egyptian beating an Israelite slave. Moses kills the Egyptian and runs away from Egypt when Pharaoh, the ruler of Egypt, hears of what Moses has done and tries to kill him.

Whose am I? Who do I belong to? Who do I have family or community responsibilities to? Exodus 3:1-6 (the account of God speaking to Moses from within a burning bush) tells of Moses responding to God's call: 'I am the God of your father – the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'. Moses now knows that he belongs to God.

What am I to do? The rest of Exodus 3 and then chapter 4 recount God's mission for Moses and how Moses rather struggles to accept it. Interestingly, God seems to change his plans based on how Moses reacts to what God requires him to do. I might blog about this at a later date...

I found all these questions interesting and I can certainly see how they apply to any modern-day task of leadership. It's so important to keep the big picture in mind, avoiding the trap of drowning in the details. But I keep wondering how useful it is to look in detail at Old Testament figures, considering that the New Testament offers such a redefined picture of Godly leadership.

How useful are the Old Testament examples?

Here's what I mean. In the Old Testament, God's purposes were almost entirely worked out through a nation, with politics, structures, taxes (or tithes, as they were known then) and many other things that we would recognise in modern-day nations. So most of the leaders in the Old Testament were either involved in government (Moses, David and so on) or they tried to bring God's word to government from the outside (the prophetic tradition – the likes of Isaiah and Amos).

Moving to the New Testament, the situation is vastly different. Jesus had relatively little to say about government; he seemed much more concerned with how his followers should relate to one another and to the outsiders, the marginalised. He socialised with the failures and outcasts of his time, not those who had power or authority. And look at these passages on the topics of leadership and decision-making:

So Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters. And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father. And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be a servant. But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Then the apostles and elders together with the whole church in Jerusalem chose delegates, and they sent them to Antioch of Syria with Paul and Barnabas to report on this decision. The men chosen were two of the church leaders – Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas. This is the letter they took with them:

"This letter is from the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem. It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings! We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but we did not send them! So we decided, having come to complete agreement, to send you official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..." (Italics added)

So be careful how you live. Don’t live like fools, but like those who are wise. Make the most of every opportunity in these evil days. Don’t act thoughtlessly, but understand what the Lord wants you to do. Don’t be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, and making music to the Lord in your hearts. And give thanks for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. And further, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Italics added)

Christian leadership (as opposed to Old Testament leadership) is all about mutual submission. And I'm worried that focusing on pre-Christian figures like Moses and David leads us to lose sight of the distinctive flavour of Christian leadership as illustrated in the New Testament. Leading a nation (even the nation chosen by God) is, I suggest, fundamentally different from leading God's people in the Christian era.

Leadership and mutual submission

I’ve nearly finished my essay about Christian leadership that I mentioned on here in January. It’s been so interesting and thought-provoking, and it’s really developed my thinking about what Christian leadership can look like. A question that has come up a couple of times in discussions with my course-mates has been about leaders and submission. How should leaders react to Paul’s statement that Christians should ‘submit to one another out of reverence for Christ’? Does this mean leaders should defer to what their followers want to do? But surely nothing would get done! Maybe it doesn’t apply to leaders at all, then.

Perhaps a clue is in this wonderful little quotation I found about Paul’s leadership style. It’s from a book called ‘Paul’s Idea of Community’:

‘The apostle [Paul] – for all his divine call, diverse gifts, and founding labours – does not set himself in a hierarchical position above his communities or act in an authoritarian manner towards them. He refuses to do this since Christ, not he, is their master [2 Corinthians 4:5].’

I’ve also been reminded recently of a great illustration our senior pastor used in a talk, about how he saw his role (and the leadership team’s role as a whole). He said it’s not up to church leaders to make everything happen, but they should make it possible for everyone in the church to use their gifts and skills for God’s glory. So if people have identified a need of some sort then it’s not for the leaders to directly meet the need themselves; they should encourage and enable people in church community to meet the need. Leaders might be involved in the work, or they might not be. What matters is that the need is met, not who meets it.

A different kind of church meeting

Our church meeting on Sunday is going to be a bit different from the usual. Our children and all the kids' ministry team will be in the main meeting, with the other adults choosing one of three seminar / workshop options. And I'm leading one of the workshops! I'm really looking forward to it but I've got no idea how it will go. And how it will go is largely out of my hands...

The plan is that everyone who opts for this workshop will sit in a circle and wait until we feel God prompting us to say or do something. This could be to talk about something we've read in the Bible recently, or to share some message that we think God has given us, or perhaps to lead a song that we can all join in with. It's all about being spontaneous and free to follow where God is leading us that morning, without the rigidity of a pre-set agenda. So how it goes will depend a great deal on what everybody brings, in the same way as the success of a shared picnic depends on everyone bringing something (food, drink, games, companionship).

I'm a bit nervous as I'm guessing this will be most people's first experience of taking part in a meeting like this. I want the experience to be positive and for people to be enthused about meeting together in this way again from time to time. But all I can do is pray that God would prepare people and give them something to share over the next few days, and that he would really show up on Sunday morning! I know he's always with us, but I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

Christian Leadership

My next theology course essay is for a module called Leadership and Ministry. We have a wide choice of topics but I think I'll be choosing to 'Summarize and critically evaluate the contributions of Bill Hybels' book, 'Courageous Leadership' to a Christian understanding of leadership'. I read through a large chunk of the book last week on the train (a meeting in London on Wednesday meant I had plenty of time on the train!) and what I've read so far has really got me thinking.

In case you don't know, Bill Hybels is the senior pastor at Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago in the USA. He was a founder member of the church some thirty years ago and it's grown to become one of the largest congregations in America, with many thousands of people involved in one way or another. As it happens, I went to a Sunday meeting at Willow Creek in summer 2009 when I was visiting my friends Duncan and Gloria in Indiana.

Anyway, back to the book. Hybels mentions several times that Willow Creek was set up to be an 'Acts 2 church', by which he means a church where 'believers loved each other with a radical kind of love... took off their masks and shared their lives with one another... laughed and cried and prayed and sang and served together in authentic Christian fellowship'. (From page 17 of Courageous Leadership.) Now that all sounds great, doesn't it? Surely few Christians would argue with any part of that vision!

But what Hybels hasn't apparently given much thought to is the structure of the early church. This came out clearest for me in chapter five of the book, called 'The Resource Challenge'. Hybels says that, 'My romance with the notion of building an Acts 2 church had blinded me to the harsh realities of funding one' and, 'The point leader... responsible for overseeing the team, congregation, or organization... has to raise money for the staff, for the ministry programs, and for his or her family as well.' I don't know about you, but I'm struggling to see a lot of that in the early church. I see small house-based communities with no single person responsible for their leadership. I see little evidence for there being anyone in the position of leader; it's all about function . If people pay attention to what you say and think you are worth following, then you're a leader. Just like if you do a lot of spurring people on and giving them fresh belief, then you're an encourager. And if you are often ready and willing to give generously to those in need, then you could be described as a giver.

The whole approach that Hybels takes is summed up nicely, to my mind, by a comment in one of the reader's reviews on the Amazon page: 'It is a secular management book with a bit of Christianity bolted on to it'. Now that's fine if you think we should organise and run our churches on the same general lines as we run our businesses. But if churches are something unique, not like anything else found in the world, then I think we should be very cautious about applying business methods to them. For me, it comes down to this: the church is the Body of Christ, not just another organisation.

What’s your church like?

How do you answer a question like this? Do you talk about what happens at a typical Sunday meeting? Maybe you say how many people belong to the church, and what social or outreach projects the church runs. Credit to Frank Viola for the idea, but how about describing what our church is like in terms of what a church is supposed to be:

A new kind of people – looking beyond the natural categories of race, social background, gender, age and so on

A family – looking after each other and putting each other’s needs before our own

A body – with everyone contributing and playing a part in the life of the church, like a body is made of many parts that can only work properly when in harmony with all the other parts

A bride – loved limitlessly by God and expressing his beauty in our world

An army – growing in our ability to stand against the powers opposed to God: ‘I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it’.

A holy priesthood – all serving God and bringing him glory through our daily lives

A holy nation – set apart for God’s purposes, reflecting the values of God’s kingdom rather than our earthly kingdom

A golden lampstand – bringing light to the world and together banishing the darkness of oppression, injustice and poverty

One loaf – connected together and united, like the grains that are baked together to make a loaf of bread

God’s field – as expressed in the loaf idea, we should all be rooted in God’s soil so that together we show God’s likeness

A vineyard – linked with Christ so that his character and ours are so closely intertwined

A sheepfold – moving together and following the direction of God, our shepherd

A temple – being built together with Christ as our foundation and cornerstone, and bringing God’s presence into the world

A city – citizens of the glorious heavenly Jerusalem, a city in which Jesus is the prince and the light

Please do have a quick read of the article on Frank Viola’s blog. I think it’s wonderful and it’s certainly given me a fresh lens on how we ‘do’ church.