Church Planting is For Wimps 4: Cleaning Out the Sheaves

Today we continue our chapter-by-chapter blog discussion of the book Church Planting is For Wimps. For those of you who may have just been browsing so far, it is not too late to join in! Simply pick up a copy of the book and start reading. If you have missed the previous posts, please read my thoughts on chapter 1, chapter 2, and chapter 3.

Mike is now pastor of Guilford Fellowship and faithfully preaching God’s Word. He has begun to steadily work toward revitalizing this church. But he begins to recognize a new and pressing challenge–membership. He finds more and more people in the local community who consider themselves members of Guilford, but who have not been involved in any way for years. And then there are those who have left the church since he became pastor. None of them had resigned their membership, and most never even bothered to tell him that they were leaving. And if this was not enough, he couldn’t even find a membership list to know who were actually members of the church.

What could he do? He led the church to require that all who wanted to remain members must sign the church covenant. After giving this opportunity to any who considered themselves members, Only those in regular attendance were willing to make this commitment. They took the covenants that they had received and created a church membership list.

Then Mike did something that is against everything you will ever read about in church planting and church growth materials. He ditched their mission and vision statements! Can you believe it? But I appreciate his reasoning:

“Look, if you don’t know what you’re supposed to be doing as a church planter, if you need to write out a statement in order to remember that your church is supposed to evangelize the lost and help Christians grow in Christ, friend, you shouldn’t be a church planter. How about casting vision the way Protestants have cast vision for the past five hundred years! Teach God’s Word! Explain it to God’s people, and tell them God’s mission and vision and values and purpose and strategy for their life. Don’t refer them back to some mantra that you make sure everyone in the congregation has memorized. Teach them what the Bible says about what it means to be a faithful Christian and a faithful church” (62-63).

So, in many ways, he brings the church to the point where they have a clean slate. What is the next step? Addressing the church’s statement of faith. Not that it was all that bad, but it was cobbled together from their denomination’s statement and a local seminary’s statement. Unfortunately, it majored on the minors in some doctrinal areas, and Mike wanted to root their church more firmly in its historical roots. So the church decided to adopt the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. I know, I know, it is not our beloved 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith or even its American counterpart, the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. But at least the pastor led his church to an understanding of the need to have a clear confession, and he includes several reasons why church plants and existing churches should be confessional.

Then Mike tackles the church’s constitution and by-laws. Sure this may sound boring and involve many things that many of us could care less about, but we all should care about the nature and structure of the church and its leadership. Using Capitol Hill Baptist Church as their starting point, the committee made a few changes to CHBC’s constitution and presented it to the congregation. After a few months of conversation, they voted to adopt it.

One reason why Mike was so intent on revising Guilford’s constitution was to move to a plural eldership in the church’s leadership. He writes:

“I wanted elders who would function as elders by shepherding and teaching the congregation; and I wanted deacons who would function as deacons by serving the congregation and making sure needs are met…. Establishing a plural eldership doesn’t mean neglecting other important parts of the Christian mission; it means raising up more men to lead in the very work of Christian mission” (68-69).

Amen! Like Mike, I see far too many church planters, pastors, and other church leaders today who do not understand the importance of having a plurality of elders. It is the biblical expectation and necessary for the health of the church. This is not a minor issue for those of us who like to debate ecclesiology. It is how God has revealed His churches to be led. And read how Mike explains the benefits he quickly experienced:

“Suddenly I had a recognized group of men (older men, wiser men) with whom I could deliberate about the affairs of the church. The burden of making decisions, planning strategies, and shepherding the flock was now spread across three sets of shoulders” (70).

I wouldn’t want it to be any other way.

But now you are up. What are your thoughts?

John Divito
Member, Heritage Baptist Church
M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Jim Hamilton – Biblical Theology and Preaching

Jim Hamilton has contributed a chapter in a new book – Text-Driven Preaching. You can read about the book and Jim’s chapter in its entirety here. Thanks, JH!

“Reading Scripture…” – C. Hall: Quote #11 – Chrysostom on reading the NT

Listen carefully to me, I entreat you…. [P]rocure books that will be medicines for the soul….At least get a copy of the New Testament, the Apostle’s epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If you encounter grief, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take from them comfort for your trouble, whether it be loss, or death, or bereavement over the loss of relations. Don’t simply dive into them. Swim in them. Keep them constantly in your mind. The cause of all evils is the failure to know the Scriptures well. (Hall, 96; from Chrysostom’s ninth homily on Colossians)

History of Hermeneutics (III): A. Jewish – 2. Types of Jewish herm. – II

HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS

2. Types of Jewish hermeneutical method (a. Literal, b. Midrash, c. Pesher, d. Allegorical, e. Typological)

a. Literal

b. Midrash

c. Pesher

1) Defined: Pesher comes from an Aramaic word and means solution or interpretation. It is “…an exegetical method…that suggests that the prophetic writings contain a hidden eschatological significance or divine mystery that may be revealed only by a forced and even abnormal construction of the biblical text.”[18] Pesher interpretation was a style “in which a verse of Scripture is interpreted with reference to the interpreter’s own time and situation, which is usually seen as the last days.”[19]

2) Explained: Pesher interpretation focused on understanding current events in light of ancient prophecy. It is quite common in the Dead Sea Scrolls.[20] Pesher attempted to apply prophecy to current events. Whereas midrash can be described as teaching “this has relevance to this,” pesher can be described as teaching “this is that.” In the former, the ancient text spoke to current ethical issues; in the latter, current events were seen as fulfillments of the ancient text. The Qumranic interpreters “considered themselves the divinely elected community of the final generation of the present age, living in the days of “messianic travail” before the eschatological consummation. Theirs was the task of preparing for the coming of the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come.”[21] Everything the prophet wrote “has a veiled, eschatological meaning…”[22] But in order to understand the veiled meaning, divine revelation was necessary.[23] Longenecker says:

Biblical interpretation at Qumran, then, was considered to be first of all revelatory and/or charismatic in nature. Certain prophecies had been given in cryptic and enigmatic terms, and no one could understand their true meaning until the Teacher of Righteousness was given the interpretive key. In a real sense, they understood the passages in question as possessing a sensus plenior,[24] which could be ascertained only from a revelational standpoint, and they believed that the true message of Scripture was heard only when prophecy and interpretation were brought together. The understanding of the Teacher in regard to certain crucial passages and the guidelines he laid down for future study were to be the touchstones for all further exegesis…[25]

3) Illustrated:

a) In Jewish literature: Notice Qumran’s commentary on Habakkuk 2:1-3. Longenecker quotes it as follows:

God told Habakkuk to write the things that were to come upon the last generation, but he did not inform him when that period would come to consummation. And as for the phrase, “that he may run who reads,” the interpretation (pesher) concerns the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God made known all the mysteries…of the words of his servants the prophets. The last period extends beyond anything that the prophets have foretold, for “the mysteries of God are destined to be performed wondrously.[26]

b) In Christian literature (i.e., the NT): We will not discuss the uniqueness of New Testament interpretive models at this point. We will simply note that there are distinct differences between Jewish and New Testament interpretation – namely, divine inspiration, infallible interpretive results, and authoritative paradigms for all subsequent interpreters.

* Gospels: Longenecker claims that Jesus’ “most characteristic use of Scripture is portrayed as being a pesher type of interpretation. The “this is that” fulfillment motif, which is distinctive to pesher exegesis, repeatedly comes to the fore in the words of Jesus.”[27] He goes on to list nine examples from the Gospels. We will look at one – Jesus’ use of Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:16-21. Here we see an ancient text utilized by Jesus in a way that fits the “this [Jesus] is that [what Isaiah prophesied]” motif of the pesher approach. Standing outside the standpoint of the Old Testament, which is where Jesus stood while on earth, he viewed his messianic mission as an eschatological fulfillment of Isaiah’s words.
* Acts: Peter’s use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:14-21. Here we see an ancient text utilized by Peter in a way that the fits the “this [the pentecostal events described by Luke] is that [what Joel prophesied]” motif of the pesher approach. Standing outside the standpoint of the Old Testament, which is where Peter (and Luke) stood while on earth, he viewed the events of Pentecost as an eschatological fulfillment of Joel’s words.
* Epistles: Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31-32. The philosophy of pesher interpretation is also illustrated in 1 Peter 1:10-12. Both of these texts illustrate a “this is that” interpretive method. “This” is what Paul and Peter were writing about (“Christ and the church” and “this salvation”) is “that” which was spoken about beforehand. The church and the salvation ushered in by Jesus are viewed by Paul and Peter as eschatological fulfillments of that which was spoken beforehand in the Old Testament.

[18] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 30.

[19] Patzia & Petrotta, PDBS, 92.

[20] The Dead Sea Scrolls are a “collection of approximately 850 Jewish manuscripts (mostly fragmentary) discovered by shepherds in 1947 in caves near the shore of the Dead Sea. These scrolls represent all the biblical texts except Esther, as well as many nonbiblical texts, including commentaries and paraphrases of biblical books, and liturgical and eschatological works. The scrolls have assisted scholars in establishing the text of the Hebrew Bible as it was centuries before the Masoretic Text [7th century A.D.?], which was previously the earliest available manuscript… Equally important, the scrolls have shed light on early Judaism and early Christianity by unveiling the thought and practice of one group among the diversity of perspective that existed within Judaism at that time. The communities that preserved these texts were ascetic with respect to laws of purity and eschatological with respect to history and God’s rule.” Taken from Patzia & Petrotta, PDBS, 32-33. The scrolls were found in jars. It is believed that they were placed in caves at Qumran around A. D. 70. The dates for the content of the scrolls range from 250 B.C. to about A.D. 68. Cf. R. K. Harrison, “Dead Sea Scrolls” in Merrill C. Tenney, General Editor, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, D-G (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975, 1976), 58.

[21] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 24.

[22] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 25.

[23] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 31.

[24] Latin for “fuller sense.” We will explore this concept later.

[25] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 29.

[26] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 26-27.

[27] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 54.

DeYoung on Social Justice and the Church

You can read DeYoung’s post on Luke 4:16-21 here. Below is one of his responses to numerous comments:

Daren, those are excellent questions, and a I certainly don’t want to discourage brothers and sisters sacrificing to meet the needs of those around the world. My sense is that we should speak less about what we must do and more in terms of what we can do. That is, I’d like to see the church inspire its members by saying “Here are opportunities to love” rather than putting a burden on folks that says, “This is a matter of justice. We are responsible to fix this.” I think it’s also important to see the difference between the church’s mission (to make disciples) and the calling God may have on our lives as individuals (politics, medicine, agriculture, etc.). A doctor doesn’t have to evangelize his patients to justify being a doctor. But on the other hand, the mission of the church is not to build hospitals. May God bless you as serve.

Pin It on Pinterest