A Cruciform Worldview

Worldview Church » September 2008

I have been steeped in biblical worldview teaching since junior high school. I studied the Bible in a Christian college-prep school, majored in Bible and Christian Education at a college known for its worldview curriculum, and earned a masters degree in biblical studies and another in Christian education at one of the world’s finest seminaries. During those years I learned the Bible’s explanation of the nature of reality as well as its answers to the ultimate questions concerning origin, identity, meaning, morality, and destiny. I even learned how to teach the Bible to others, and I have discipled adolescents in the biblical worldview for 20 years.

For many of those years, though, I lived and taught the biblical worldview more as rules to live by and examples to follow than as a way of life transformed by the Gospel. As I look back over my years of church ministry and Bible teaching, I am saddened by how often I urged people to obey the Law of God without also urging them to believe the Gospel of God.

I remember how excited I was to discover that the thrust and aim of biblical teaching is about love for God and others (Matthew 22:36-40; 1 Timothy 1:5). I loaded all of my lessons like bullets into those two guns and fired away, hoping to get my listeners’ feet to dance to the tune of the Great Commandments. I turned the guns on my own feet, working hard at personal devotions and trying with all my might to be a better person.

Three years into marriage and two years into seminary, my pursuit of loving God and others came crashing down when a losing battle to secret sins drove me to the counselor’s office. There I found a Christian counselor who knew how to apply the fullness of the cross-shaped biblical worldview to my life. He did not excuse my lack of love for God and others. He actually raised the bar of these standards to the level of my heart, helping me see how I had violated God’s design to live in right vertical relationship with Him and right horizontal relationship with others more than I imagined.

He also did something that I had not been doing: he taught me how to apply the cross to my ongoing sin. He helped me to see that one of my worst sins was self-righteousness, depending on myself to love God and others. He encouraged me to take my sinful self-effort to the cross, embrace the good news that Jesus loved God and others perfectly in my place, that He died to appease God’s wrath for my refusal to live for God and others, and that He lives to empower me by His Spirit to live a cross-shaped life.

My worldview was not biblical until it was also cruciform. The cruciform worldview teaches us that we are to be shaped by the cross into the shape of the cross. We were made to live a cross-shaped life: to love God and love others in the place where we live. That’s what it means to take the shape of the cross. But that cross-shaped life is not possible unless we are being shaped by the cross, unless we are being transformed from one degree of glory to the next by the grace of the gospel (2 Corinthians 3:18-4:6).

During those painfully redemptive days of seminary, I began to realize that my so-called “biblical” worldview was cross-less, and therefore not Biblical at all. Those of us who ballyhoo the biblical worldview can come dangerously close to the error of the Pharisees, to whom Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40).

Could He not likewise say to us, “You study the Scriptures so that you might develop a biblical worldview, and it is they that bear witness about Me, the key to interpreting and living in accordance with all of reality; yet you fail to see Me in every text and sometimes are willing to build a worldview apart from believing in and becoming like Me”?

We want the Bible to shape the way we look at the world, but our view of the Word is too often Christ-less and cross-less, resulting in the promotion of rules to live by and examples to follow. Jesus Christ crucified is the lens through which, and the life by which, we truly make sense of God's Word and world (1 Corinthians 1:20-25). With all the talk about biblical worldview, we must remember that our worldview is not biblical unless it is also cruciform.

I have not stopped teaching people that all of life is about loving God and loving others where they live, nor have I stopped pursuing that life. I actually find myself practicing it more passionately than ever. But now I’m learning that Bible bullets loaded in the guns of loving God and others will fire amiss unless they’re aimed at hearts marked by the cross-hairs of Christ crucified.

Jimmy Davis is associate editor of Worldview Church and pastor of Riverside Church in Knoxville, Tenn. He maintains the Cruciform Life Blog.

The Jesus Way, Part 1

Worldview Church » September 2008

ALONG THE ECCLESIASTICAL HIGHWAY
The first Christians apparently had but one simple and telling term by which to refer to their project. They called it “The Way.”

The Apostle Paul deplored the idea that the people of The Way should ever tolerate divisions within their midst. He raked the Corinthians over the coals for allowing schism to rend their fellowship (1 Corinthians 1), and he blasted those from the Pharisaical party who sought to divide the churches along ethnic lines. He warned the Romans to watch out for schismatics and have nothing to do with them (Romans 16:17,18). He implored the Ephesians to see that Christ had broken down every barrier to true fellowship, and they should now be concerned to build one another up in the Spirit (Ephesians 2). There is but one Body, Paul insisted (Ephesians 4:4), and it is every believer’s duty to “work hard to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3, my translation). There is only one Way of salvation—by the grace of God through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and one hope of our calling—that we might stand now and forever in the glory of God to the praise of His holy and exalted name.

Thus, from the beginning, those who identified themselves as The Way were made to understand the importance of unity, oneness, collaboration, encouragement, and commonality. The first Christians—the followers of The Way—turned their world upside down for Jesus. We, on the other hand, appear to have dumped our contentious, competitive, fragmented, and frenzied age upside-down on our own heads, making lots of noise and offering lots of activity before the watching world, but with disproportionately little in the way of lasting impact. Increasingly, the Ecclesiastical Highway is forced to run along the margins of society—which, in case we haven’t noticed, runs very near the ledge.

Two thousand years after The Way burst onto the historical scene, its legacy has become a thousands-lane highway where people of varying communions putter along or race ahead, sometimes weaving in and out of traffic, but all the while looking out for their own safety above all. Most folks travel along politely enough, but there’s a fair amount of road rage along the great Ecclesiastical Highway, and plenty of abandoned cars litter the shoulder.

Sometimes the highway separates and different lanes diverge from one another, each one generally tending in the same direction, yet with no concern as to whether or not they should ever come together again. Some folks insist on driving on the shoulders and, over time, some of those shoulders have become new lanes with shoulders of their own. In the HOV lanes, the megachurch folks try to keep ahead of the pack, which watches them speed by with alternating glances of admiration and scorn. Some along the Ecclesiastical Highway have taken wrong turns and are stalled on unpaved, swampy roads, or at “Bridge Out” signs that nobody saw coming. It’s a colorful, cacophonous crowd that careens along the Ecclesiastical Highway, but at times it seems our journey is producing more pollution than progress where advancing the Kingdom of God is concerned.

THE HARD WORK OF UNITY
What’s hardest about maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, of course, is that all those other folks aren’t like me. They don’t have my background or education. Their understanding of this or that doctrine, or this or that practice is not the same as mine, and therefore, of course, their entire profession of faith must be considered suspect. They don’t sing the songs I know, don’t use the same version of the Bible I do, and insist on perpetually casting doubt on the things I believe. If those people were just more like me we’d be able to work together and have greater unity before the world.

But if they were all just like me then where would be the necessity for “working hard” to maintain our unity, a unity that, as long as it is compromised or neglected, adversely affects our witness for Jesus Christ before the watching world (John 17:21)? The bond we possess within The Way is not a bond of doctrinal, denominational, social, ethnic, racial, or generational identity. It is a bond of the Spirit, and only in the Spirit may we hope to discover the seams along which our bond has been rent and must once more be repaired.

Yes, it’s hard work to overcome the things that divide us, set aside ages-old animosities and resentments, and put our pride on the back burner for good. But it can be done. In the effort known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together, we have seen unprecedented progress toward repairing the divide that has separated these communions, if only between and among those members of both communions who have been participants in these conversations for over 10 years now. No one has been asked to forsake his or her denominational identity or to abandon cherished theological convictions. Disagreements still remain, but if you could sit through the conversations we hold in New York twice a year, and listen as we pray, discuss the Scriptures, encourage and clarify one another in our common endeavor, laugh and share meals together, you would have to conclude that there is some hard work toward more unity, more rediscovery of The Way, that seems to be bearing fruit.

A UNITY IN THE GOSPEL
This bi-monthly review goes out to over 10,000 pastors and church leaders from many age groups, denominations, and theological camps. What we all seem to have in common is two things: We are the Church, and none denies this. We are the people of The Way, sincere followers of our Lord Jesus Christ and shepherds of His flock. And we are passionate—or perhaps only curious—about worldview, and the application of the Gospel to all of life. What does this suggest? Three things.

First, our hearts appear to beat together for more of a worldview Church because we sense that something has been missing in the Gospel we have received and been preaching and teaching over the past two generations. Since all truth is God’s truth, Christ is Lord of all, and His Word is the lamp unto our feet and light on our path in every area of life, it makes sense to us that the Gospel we live and proclaim should be allowed to pour light into more of our lives than is typically the case in many of our churches. In every lane of the Ecclesiastical Highway people are longing and craning their necks to discover directions to a fuller, more powerful, and more convincing Gospel of the Kingdom. The unity that existed in the early Church among the people of The Way can be ours once again as we encourage one another in discovering and proclaiming this broader and more faithful Good News.

Second, I suspect we all sense the presence of a door of opportunity for redefining the Gospel according to more ancient and faithful norms than what many are employing today. Traditional evangelicals, reform-minded Anglicans and Catholics, evangelical Orthodox writers, emergent and emerging church advocates, supporters of an ancient-future mode of thought, and missional church devotees have all focused on important aspects of the Church’s calling in our day. But each of these emphases seems to walk only a portion of the path by which that ancient movement turned its world upside down.

Still, there is a sense of change in the air, or, at least, of needing to change, and this means that we have an opportunity to share ideas and look together backward to our forebears, and round about to one another, in order to discover where we have traded in the priorities of The Way for agendas picked up somewhere else along our journey. We will squander this opportunity for greater unity if we insist on holding on to our combativeness, our my-way-or-the-highwayness, or our pettiness, rather than coming together in the Spirit to seek the Lord and to rediscover The Way.

Finally, we all accept the fact that, in any door of opportunity, adversity is waiting to try to thwart our progress (1 Corinthians 16:9). We have a good deal of hard work to do if we’re going to reclaim a fuller and more faithful Gospel across the many lanes of traffic that divide us on the Ecclesiastical Highway. It will be risky at times, maybe even a little dangerous for some. We’ll need to look for allies and fellow-travelers, and we will have to nurture patience and forbearance with those who may denounce our effort and question our orthodoxy. So we need to study and prepare ourselves for this new worldview Church opportunity. We need to listen to new voices, search out old ones, encourage one another, enlist others in this quest to recover The Way, and make our own new contributions to the creation of a worldview Church that crosses all the lanes of traffic and binds the Body of Christ together in the Spirit with renewed vision, strength, and resolve.

Worldview Church comes to you with a strong sense of hope and anticipation. We hope to encourage our readers to long for more, desire more from the Lord and their salvation, and bring more to the work of making disciples than they ever have. We hope to inspire greater vision and more sacrificial leadership on the part of pastors and church leaders. And we anticipate that God will raise up a new generation of shepherds of His flocks who will, as they rediscover The Way, find that the old, old story is indeed more wonderful than it has ever seemed before.

T. M. Moore is editor of Worldview Church and dean of the BreakPoint Centurions.

There are a few classic books that never run dry no matter how often you dip into them. In The Name of Jesus is not only short and sweet, it is also deep and wide. I have drunk it to the dregs almost yearly for the last six years and am continually challenged by its message. Here is a sample one of the many quotes that I often return to: “The question is not: How many people take you seriously? How much are you going to accomplish? Can you show me some results? But: Are you in love with Jesus?” These words both refresh and rebuke busy Christian leaders like me.

After serving many years as a respected priest, counselor, scholar, and professor, Henri Nouwen “stepped away from the academic life and [was] called to be a priest for mentally handicapped patients and their assistants” in the Daybreak community (page 3). While serving there Nouwen was invited to give a series of lectures to a group of priests and ministers on “Christian leadership in the twenty-first century.” This book contains both the transcript of Nouwen’s lectures along with the story of how he and Bill, one of Daybreak’s patients, ministered together during the lecture series.

Nouwen uses two narratives from the gospels to frame his thoughts about Christian leadership: the story of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11) and the story of Peter’s call to be a shepherd (John 21:15-19). Nouwen’s gut-level honesty about the real temptations that Christian leaders face is simultaneously a breath of fresh air and piercing sword for the soul of Christian leaders. Nouwen argues that we pastors, teachers and leaders are tempted by the same tactics Satan used against the Master Teacher in the desert: the temptation to be relevant, to seek popularity, and to be powerful.

Nouwen offers a counterattack to each temptation with the words of Jesus spoken to Peter during their post-resurrection breakfast meeting: the temptation to be relevant is negated by the question “Do you love me?”; the temptation to be popular is offset by the task of “feed[ing] my sheep”; the temptation to be powerful is dismissed by the call to humble servitude as Jesus tells Peter that “somebody else will take you.”

Nouwen reminds us that the “downward” path from defective to effective Christian leadership is taken by practicing the disciplines often the first to be jettisoned when a Christian leader gets overwhelmed: prayer, confession, forgiveness, and theological reflection. Nouwen calls us to these practices in order to increase our fruitfulness, not our productivity; to pursue dependence on Christ, rather than independence from Him; and to exchange the hubris that accompanies power for the powerlessness of humility.

In the Name of Jesus is rich with insight and should be required reading for all Christian leaders. Though short and sweet, this 100-page book packs a multi-volume punch. Read it with your staff, your elders and deacons, or other lay-leaders in your church. Prepare to be encouraged and exhorted at the same time. Then read it again next year.

Jimmy Davis is an ordained teaching elder in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. He and his wife, Christine, are currently planting Riverside Church, a family of home churches, in the historic Hardin Valley community of Knox County, Tenn.

A Worldview Church Interview with Dr. Stan Gale

Dr. Stan Gale is a long-time friend of BreakPoint and the Worldview Church. In addition to his work as pastor in West Chester, Pa., Stan is the founder and director of Community Houses of Prayer, a ministry designed to mobilize church members for outreach to their communities through prayer. Having followed this ministry for some time, I thought it would be a good idea to introduce readers to this valuable resource.

WVC: How did this ministry come about? What was it in your own life, or that of your church, that led you to take up this work?

Stan Gale: In the mid-1990’s I was serving as pastor of a local church. Although my prayer life was steady, it didn’t seem to have the fire and fervency I had tasted at various periods in my Christian walk. On top of that, as a pastor I had the job of leading and equipping my congregation in their walk with Christ and service to Him.

My elders allowed me the opportunity to do further study toward a doctorate at Covenant Theological Seminary. My coursework led me into study of prayer for revival and kingdom prayer as a mighty means of God’s appointment for the accomplishment of His decreed will. At the same time, God was drawing me into rich communion with Him as I was learning to live in His presence, with a profound sense of my sin and indebtedness to His grace. Other coursework exposed me to lifestyle evangelism and to the often-progressive nature of God’s working in lives.

Part of my program involved doing a research project and writing a dissertation. My project dealt with prayer and personal evangelism. The dissertation that came out of it was entitled, “The Effect of Strategic Prayer on the Evangelistic Attitude and Activity of the Local Church.” For the literature review section of the dissertation my advisor suggested I explore the dimension of spiritual warfare in evangelism. He told me there was very little written about the subject from the perspective of Reformed theology. Sure enough, he was right. Most of the popular books approached spiritual warfare from a fanciful, extra-biblical framework, while Reformed literature was concerned mainly with spiritual warfare in sanctification issues of counseling and discipleship rather than service issues of evangelism.

From that groundwork and continuing study, I developed Community Houses of Prayer, the heart of which is the Community Houses of Prayer Ministry Manual, published in 2002. The website to support the ministry was launched in 2003.

WVC: What exactly is CHOP?

SDG: CHOP is a ministry tool that directs prayer as a means to revive (motiva­tion) our hearts in grace as we draw near to the living God as our loving Father, and to involve (participation) us in our everyday lives as active witnesses for Jesus Christ in dependence and expectation of His work­ing. CHOP looks to cultivate in us a greater awareness of the evangelistic nature of ordinary life in which we find ourselves every day. It kindles in us an attitude of personal involvement and expectation as the wit­nesses for Christ we are by virtue of being His disciples. It involves us in the actual activity of bearing verbal witness to the glorious gospel of salvation bound up in Christ alone. We look to draw near to people for Christ and draw near to Christ for people. And we do it collectively, united with fellow believers for mutual encouragement in a common mission.

WVC: What does it mean to be part of CHOP?

SDG: CHOP involves a small group of two or more believers committing themselves to a 12-week period of meeting together weekly and praying privately daily. The mission of the group is the common goal and mutual support of reaching others for Christ, particularly through prayer. It involves kingdom prayer that will powerfully affect us as God’s instruments and will carry out God’s purposes in those around us for whom we are praying and drawing near. CHOP weaves together four strands: 1) lifestyle evangelism, 2) strategic prayer, 3) personal spiritual renewal, and 4) spiritual warfare. Par­ticipation in CHOP trains participants in these four aspects through instruction, reinforcement and prac­tice.

WVC: What exactly are these four strands woven into CHOP?

SDG: Lifestyle evangelism looks to share the gospel in the context of those relationships at work or at home or wherever God has providentially placed us. Strategic prayer is kingdom prayer (i.e., prayer concerned with the matters, priorities and goals of Christ’s king­dom) characterized by planning, intention, focus, and direction. Personal spiritual renewal reaches to matters of motivation as we are invigorated with the scent of God’s grace so richly, unexpectedly and undeservedly poured out upon us. It seeks to help us grow in intimate knowledge of God fueled by His revelation of Himself in His Word. Such prayer draws us near to God, cultivating in us His heart for the lost, compelling our wit­ness by love and gratitude and not by sterile duty. Spiritual warfare takes into account the biblical data of the reality of spiritual opposition for our work of witness for the extension and strengthening of the kingdom of God against the kingdom of the prince of darkness. It is prayer aware and prayer against. This strand attempts to find firm footing on the foundation of God’s written Word, while avoiding the pitfalls stemming from fanciful notions and excesses.

WVC: How would you describe the mission of CHOP? How do you measure your progress?

SDG: The official mission of CHOP is “to mobilize Christ’s disciples around the world where God has provi­dentially placed them to reach others with the gospel through the intimacy and instrumentality of strategic prayer.” CHOP pursues that mission toward the vision of seeing “a developing network of committed communities of pray-ers around the world knowing God and seeking God for the souls of those around them.” The means to carry out the mission in pursuit of the vision is the CHOP Ministry Manual.

Measurement is tricky business. Measurement of the vision that looks to count the number of community houses of prayer is virtually impossible. On the current website we do have a button in which people can register their CHOP so that we can pray for them specifically throughout the duration of their involvement. But registration is optional. Measurement of mission that sees God’s work in CHOP participants as they draw near to God and to others with an increased awareness of their people environments and involvement in them for the sake of Christ is even more difficult to quantify. The most meaningful measurement for me are the reports of those involved who have expressed a newfound grasp of prayer, renewal of grace in relationship with God, and satisfaction in actually reaching out for Christ.

WVC: What feedback are you receiving? Are any other churches active in this ministry?

SDG: The greatest surge of feedback has come recently as I solicited comments in preparation for the revised CHOP Ministry Manual that just came out. The comments have been tremendously encouraging, hearing how God has worked in participants and through them in remarkable ways. It has validated what I believe about how God uses prayer, individually and in community. The number of churches and small groups using CHOP of which I am aware continues to grow. I know of several who plan to launch the CHOP ministry in their churches with the publication of the new Manual.

WVC: How is the Manual set up? What’s different about the new Manual?

SDG: The CHOP Ministry Manual was first published in 2002. The 2007 edition reflects feedback gained from those using the first edition as well as general improve­ments. Some of the changes include: 1) placement of the Basic Training Lessons in the body of the book, 2) inclusion of a fuller presentation of the gospel as a training tool, 3) incorporation of excerpts from my book Warfare Witness: Contending With Spiritual Opposition in Everyday Evangelism (that was published in 2005 and forms the theological and practical framework for the CHOP approach) as part of the 72-page Daily Prayer Guide that introduces and reinforces principles and practices inherent in the CHOP approach, 4) thorough revi­sion of the Daily Prayer Guide to aid in strategic prayer, 5) pre-CHOP and post-CHOP guidelines, and 6) a number of stylistic and content changes throughout for ease of use.

WVC: Why is it so important to get people praying for their neighbors? What kind of things do you encourage them to pray?

SDG: Evangelism is part of being a disciple of Jesus. The call of the Great Commission is that we bear witness to the lordship of Christ “as we go,” that is, in the ordinary flow of everyday life. The element of lifestyle evangelism in CHOP reflects the principle that it is by the providence of God that we go where we go, know whom we know, work where we work, and all those other facets of the comings and goings of ordinary life. These life-spheres are our spheres of influence. These spheres I define as “those arenas of life in which God has providentially placed us, where we operate and have contacts, and where we have special opportunity to influence others for Christ.” One of the basic training lessons of the Manual has participants map out their life spheres, such as neighbors, coworkers, and family, to target people for prayer.

As for the actual prayer for those neighbors, one of the principles of CHOP is that God has ordained prayer as a means for His ends. Prayer, by His design, engages us in the accomplishment of God’s saving purposes in the lives of those around us. CHOP directs participants in prayer on behalf of others that is rich in Scripture and takes into account the reconnaissance report of our prayer contacts’ needs and the spiritual opposition we face in the evangelistic endeavor.

WVC: How does someone get involved in this effort? What does sponsoring a CHOP ministry involve? Can it fit into a local church easily?

SDG: Both the new Manual and the website provide details about how to get a CHOP ministry going. But it’s actually as simple as starting to work through the Manual. Some have used the Manual on an individual basis, apart from meeting with others in a group. That has worked in them an excitement about joining with others in the CHOP ministry and enabled them to provide leadership. The only cost is the Manual itself.

The CHOP ministry is ideal for the local church. It provides the foundation of prayer for any evangelism training program the church may use, and it helps to build and maintain an attitude as the church militant and an outpost of God’s kingdom for the advancement of the gospel.

WVC: Is CHOP intended as a kind of forerunner to, or preparation for, further house church development? Could it be? Could existing house church networks benefit from CHOP?

SDG: The mission of CHOP does not address the house church movement explicitly, but it certainly would lend itself to it. God’s house is a house of prayer. Prayer lies at the heart of the church in communion with God and service to Him. It speaks to both sanctification and service, holding a special place in community. I can see how CHOP would engage the church in Christ’s calling and keep it from becoming ingrown and ineffectual. I can also see CHOP as a tremendous tool in church planting, establishing and growing the fledging group in the incubator of prayer and helping them to have an outward emphasis from the start.

WVC: Give us some examples of the kinds of things that encourage you to persevere in this ministry?

SDG: My main encouragement is faith, believing that God blesses what He has ordained, specifically prayer. Secondarily, I am encouraged in the obedience of faith and its fruit, as I have been blessed and humbled in seeing God work to excite and involve Christ’s disciples in witness for Him.

T.M. Moore is editor of The Worldview Church.

Recovering God's Plan for Pastoral Ministry (1)

PATTERN? WHAT PATTERN?
Let us indulge a bit of whimsy, shall we, and imagine God giving His Law, not to Moses, but to some “contemporary” evangelical church leader. I can hear God saying to this pastor, especially as relates to the task of building His—His—dwelling-place in the midst of His people: “Be sure that you make it according to the pattern revealed to you on the mount.” I can see this relevance-minded, consensus-building church leader coming down from the mountain with the news of what God has said: “He wants us to build Him a dwelling-place in our midst.” Astonished gasps and much applause of anticipation and glee. “But there’s more: He has provided minute details about the design and construction of this dwelling-place.” Oooh. Ahhhh. “Yes, it’s wonderful, isn’t it? Praise God! But, c’mon, I know you all have some thoughts about this, too. And we’re going to want to make God’s dwelling the kind of place our pagan neighbors will feel right at home attending. So, let’s get our heads together, form some focus groups, talk with a few consultants, organize some teams, and let’s get out there and build God the finest dwelling-place any community could ever have!” Cheers, applause, and reaching for check books.

Why do we always seem to be casting about for some new way or other of doing what God has clearly revealed? Why does worship have to change about every generation or so? Why do the names by which we refer to ourselves have to be upgraded with every shifting moment in history? (Are we fundamentalists, evangelicals, or post-evangelicals? Disciples or Christ-followers? Charismatics or apostolic Christians?)

And why, above all, is it necessary to reinvent the way we do the work of ministry with every new generation of pastors? I suppose there are presently more programs, paradigms, and “proven models” available for giving direction to pastors and church leaders than at any other time in the recent past. Pastors can be CEOs if they want, and if their church can support a large staff, and organize their churches by boards, departments, and committees. They can be preaching pastors and leave the work of disciple-making to somebody else. Pastors can lead their churches by means of ministry teams, growth groups, neighborhood fellowships, or satellite congregations, all dutifully managed by lay boards and subject to change with the emergence of the next hot mega-church model or hip technology.

All the while we fancy ourselves to be “building” the church according to the plans and designs of the One who said, “I will build My Church.” But the question arises as to whose drawings we’re consulting in the work of building the Church, those of the Master Architect or those of the spiritus mundi? Are we building our churches according to the pattern God revealed on the mount, or are we drawing on examples and models from the world of business and entrepreneurship to raise up a dwelling-place for God? There’s a simple way of determining. Just ask: What is the role of shepherding in the pastoral ministry of our church?

THE PRIMACY OF SHEPHERDING
From both the Old and New Testaments God makes it clear that “shepherding”—whatever that may be—is supposed to be a central component in the work of church-building. God plainly revealed through Jeremiah that, in the days when David’s Righteous Branch would bring salvation to His people, He would “set shepherds over them who will care for them” (Jeremiah 23:4). Through Ezekiel God declared that He Himself would come to shepherd His people, in the Great Shepherd descended from David, but also, presumably, in those faithful shepherds raised up to work in His name (Ezekiel 34:11ff). Both Paul and Peter freely employed the idea of shepherding to refer to the work of pastoral leadership in building the church (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-3). “Shepherd” is one of the primary parts of the title Paul uses to refer to local church pastors (Ephesians 4:11). The very idea of “pastor” relates back to the primacy of shepherding in the work of this important calling. “Shepherding,” then, seems to have been high on the agenda and prominent in the minds of those first church builders.

No one denies this, at least, no one I know. Ask any pastor whether “shepherding” should be an important part of his ministry, and he will readily concur. It doesn’t matter if he is a one-horse pastor who visits every member of his church on a regular basis or an ecclesiastical CEO who couldn’t tell a church member from a new seeker without a score card, he will insist that shepherding is of the highest priority in the work of pastoral ministry.

A QUESTION OF MEANING
No one denies the primacy of shepherding for the work of building the church. It’s not the primacy of shepherding that’s the problem; it’s the meaning of the term. In our day pastors and church leaders tend to treat “shepherding” like some kind of Kantian construct, a “thing” out there waiting for them to lay hold on, define, and put to use according to their own preferred approach to pastoral ministry. “Shepherding” is what you make it; it’s whatever you are doing in the conduct of your ministry to build the dwelling-place of the Lord. You say “potayto” and I say “potahto.” It’s all “shepherding”, isn’t it?

But such a view assumes that God has not spoken on the mount in some detail about the real nature and meaning of “shepherding.” To call this or that divergent, disparate program by the term “shepherding,” and to feel free to change or alter such programs at will, is to eviscerate any real meaning from the term and to use it merely as a kind of ministry mantra. What was “shepherding” last year doesn’t work any more, so this year we’ll do our “shepherding” following the model of such-and-such a church/pastor/ecclesiastical guru/or entrepreneurial model. Since there are no hard-and-fast guidelines as to how to do the work of “shepherding” it’s every man for himself, whatever works for you, or whatever the congregation will support.

Somebody, it seems, was sleeping up there on the mount.

Over the next several installments of this newsletter I want to examine the Biblical teaching about the primacy and practice of the work of shepherding. It is my contention that one of the reasons the American church has managed to end up so solidly on the margins of society is that the shepherds of God’s flock have been trying to lead the sheep in ways that are not consistent with what God has revealed. We may call our efforts “shepherding” and think that the good response of our people indicates that the program is going well. But unless our “shepherding” fits the pattern God has revealed in His Word, it’s not the work to which He has called us, and it’s not the work He promises to bless in the astonishing ways we see promised in Scripture, and that are decidedly lacking in most churches today.

So, beginning with our next issue, when we look at the promise of shepherding, we’ll take a more careful look at this most important aspect of the divine plan for pastoral ministry.

T.M. Moore is editor of The Worldview Church.

Keeping the Ancient Fresh

Biblical and early church writers used the word “tradition” in both negative and positive ways. In spite of this fact, many Christians still react only negatively to the word. It sounds like something anti-biblical. These people think almost entirely, or so it seems, that tradition represents “human traditions,” i.e., dead and useless doctrines or practices advanced in opposition to the Holy Scripture. Others suggest that even if tradition doesn’t stand squarely against Scripture, it sounds too “old,” like an emphasis that lacks freshness and life. If anything is “robbed of the Holy Spirit” then it is church tradition. So I am often asked, “Why would anyone seek to advance Christian tradition?”

EARLIEST REFLECTIONS ON THE APOSTLES
It is best to answer this question by going back to the earliest sources of Christian practice and reflection upon the witness of the apostles. This tradition is much more interesting, and more unified, than most modern actually readers realize. Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215) said, “The tradition of the apostles was one.” Irenaeus (AD 130–200) wrote that the martyr Polycarp (AD 69–156) would speak of his “familiar relations with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord. . . . Whatever things he heard from them (i.e., the apostles) respecting the Lord (concerning both his miracles and his teaching) he would recount—all in harmony with the Scriptures.” Irenaeus further observed, late in the second century, that “the church in Ephesus was founded by Paul. Furthermore, John remained among them permanently until the times of Trajan. That church is a true witness to the tradition of the apostles.” The church, in other words, is a witness to the apostles.

Irenaeus even spoke of tradition as though it was one with the apostles’ teaching. It was, he wrote, that which was “handed down to us.” Clement of Alexandria even wrote that “dogmas taught by strange sects will be brought forward. And against these dogmas will be opposed all those things that should be premised in accordance with the profoundest contemplation of the knowledge that will advance to our view, as we proceed to the renowned and venerable canon of tradition.” The question I asked for so many years is this: “What is ‘the venerable canon of tradition’ and how do we gain wisdom from this canon (rule) for the life of the church?”

The word tradition comes from the Latin traditio, which literally means to “hand over.” It particularly refers to that part of Christian teaching which was handed over orally. More formally, tradition has been understood as a whole set of beliefs and customs handed over orally from one generation to another and then another. This is the actual way the early Christian writers used the word.

EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS AND TRADITION
Evangelical Protestants have a checkered history when it comes to dealing with the concept of a living tradition. While the early Reformers maintained it, and even argued that they were properly preserving it (“re-forming” the Church’s teaching according to its ancient roots), their heirs have almost entirely seen this word negatively. The facts, in this instance, are quite plain. Every Christian community has a tradition, even if it is a tradition they made up rather recently. The most anti-traditional churches, like modern seeker churches or the like, have a tradition they have created. Even the casual observer can see this and should admit it.

Whether your view of the written canon of Scripture is that it alone has authority, or that tradition has something important to say alongside of Scripture (with Scripture having the final authority for serious evangelicals), you must grant that patristic oral tradition shaped and formed the canon itself. Furthermore, you must also admit, if you spend any time reading and studying the patristic authors (the early church writers), that the life of the church community, and the interpretations of these voices regarding the teaching of the apostles, led to the development of an outward form of Christian faith in real churches. These are simple historical givens that are too often overlooked by modern evangelicals.

FORMATION AND FUNCTION OF TRADITION
Another incontrovertible fact about this early Christian tradition is the way in which it functioned, and how it influenced the formation of the Canon. This is both complex and controversial. Polemicists—whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant—have had a field day with this subject, trying to prove this point or that in order to establish who is related to the true church and how. Professor John Van Engen, in addressing the issue of canonicity in the early church, has sounded what I believe to be a proper note: “The essential criterion was that these writings contain authentic apostolic tradition” (emphasis his).

So what is apostolic tradition? It clearly means more than what constitutes the words of the New Testament alone since the words, and the ideas behind them, preceded the canon. When you read these writers, what you find in them is an appeal to an orthodox “rule of faith.” This was probably a way of making reference to a short summary of the Christian faith like that spoken of in early baptismal creeds. It later resulted in documents like The Apostles’ Creed and related confessional statements, such as the fuller and more influential Nicene Creed. Again, it is an obvious fact, but it has often been missed—this “rule of faith” was spoken for decades, if not for several centuries, before it took any recognizable (and final) written form.

The early church faced a number of serious errors that threatened their nascent faith. None was more virulent and dangerous than Gnosticism. The way they faced this threat is most instructive. Between the first and fourth centuries a series of manuals was written, each appealing to the tradition of the apostles, to guide the church away from these Gnostic errors. These manuals, which contained what was believed to be the apostles’ wisdom on ethics and cultic practices, became what we know today as the Didache. By the fourth and fifth centuries the church had a fixed canon and depended less and less on this oral tradition. Most scholars agree that tradition was never entirely scrapped but rather was preserved alongside of, or subservient to, Scripture. (This is where the debate about final authority, and how the church understands it, finally divided the church in the West following the Protestant Reformation.) There is one thing we can safely conclude, and this was the position the Reformers themselves believed: Tradition was never seen as antithetical to Scripture!

I am persuaded that a healthy reflection upon the role and use of tradition leads to the kind of helpful observation made in the following statement:

Tradition was understood as the church’s enriching and interpretative reflection on the original deposit of faith contained in Scripture. This pertained preeminently to Christological interpretation of the OT. But it included as well the writings of earlier “fathers,” considered a product of the Spirit’s guidance and used to buttress the true faith; the decisions of bishops met in council under the Spirit’s aegis; and various rites that had been central to the practice of the faith. A few fathers (notably Basil) recognized that certain matters were not clearly, or even remotely prescribed in Scripture and ascribed these separately to apostolic tradition; e.g., to pray facing East, to baptize infants, to immerse three times, to fast on certain days, and the like. To count as authentic apostolic tradition, the father (Augustine and Vincent of Lerins in the West, e.g.) required that these be recognized and practiced throughout the whole church. (John Van Engen, in The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology)

The Eastern Orthodox Church developed this issue in a different way, and this development, coupled with a number of other complex issues, eventually led to the parting of ways between the East and the West. This subject is immense and well beyond my simple point here.

The Catholic Church eventually developed a strong role for unwritten tradition that went beyond the plain and obvious meaning of Scripture (e.g., the role and place of the papacy, Mary’s immaculate conception, etc.). The sources appealed to were very often extra-biblical; thus the appeal was made through the papacy, and to the doctrine of the Magisterium, which became an important authority that went beyond the Bible alone. This was at the center of the revolt of the 16th century.

The Council of Trent then clarified Rome’s view and made unwritten tradition into a kind of second, equally authoritative scripture. Vatican Council I completed this process by declaring the church’s teaching office to be centered in an infallible papacy. (Again, this is a very simple overview and only touches upon a complex and contentious subject.) Cardinal Newman, in the 19th century, preferred to speak of a “living tradition,” thus avoiding a two-source idea. And Yves Congar, a modern Catholic voice (and a fine theologian), referred to a single apostolic tradition handed down in the church through written Scripture and tradition forming a complete unity.

Luther rejected all ecclesiastical traditions that he believed distorted the gospel. He seems to have severed the authority of Scripture almost entirely from church tradition. John Calvin appealed more directly to the Spirit’s role in illuminating believers through the written Word. Catholics believe the same but have always insisted that this process must finally come under the church’s authority. The Reformers argued for a perspicuous Word, i.e., one that was clear enough to require no traditions to finally understand it. I fundamentally agree with this position, but I also believe a healthy respect for the role of living tradition keeps the church from private opinions and silly modern heresies and trends that wreak havoc in our own time.

It is worth noting that most Protestants, by the 17th century, had formed their own distinctly different traditions, preparing confessions and standards that often became as binding on people’s consciences as those they had rejected in the sixteenth century.

Today we have a worldwide proliferation of independent and free (non-state) churches, particularly in America. These churches all, in various ways, confess to stand on Scripture alone and to recognize no traditional authorities outside of the Bible. Van Engen has noted that they “are in some sense the least free because they are not even conscious of what traditions have molded their understanding of Scripture.” It is precisely against this anti-tradition perspective that I am appealing in this case.

THE RECOVERY OF TRADITION?
What I see happening in our time, under a fresh reforming spirit in many of our schools and churches, is a new realization that the Word of God never operates in a complete vacuum. The Scripture is not an isolated text that we come to all on our own. Others have also come here before us, and still others are coming in our time. Interpreting Scripture faithfully is not a private exercise but rather a community process. Arrogance and carnal independence must be checked by every good and reasonable means possible. The Reformers, and their thoughtful heirs, realize that the Scripture comes most alive in the gathered church. We desperately need a real recovery of both the Word and the Spirit. For this to happen I believe we need a proper role for tradition that will help lead us to a modern reformation.

In Protestant tradition preaching has always held the highest role in bringing the Word of God to the church. I believe, to provide one really important illustration, that both Scripture and tradition suggest a much higher place for the sacraments than many grant. Our evangelical fears about sacramentalism have plainly kept many of us from a proper understanding and practice of these God-ordained means of grace.

Further, if preaching has held such a big role in our tradition then we need to ask, “How do the sermons we hear, and the things we have been taught by these sermons, relate to the larger and wider church tradition?” Even more particularly, “What has this great tradition to say to our worship (both public and private), spiritual formation (especially our practices of devotion), and mission (domestic and foreign) to the world?” These core concerns form commitments that relate to both Scripture and tradition as I have increasingly sought to unite them.

You do not have to grant tradition an equal authority with Scripture to see very quickly that the “wisdom of tradition” may well have a great deal to teach us that will enrich our worship, spiritual formation, and mission. A balanced emphasis might well lead us to a new reformation and revival that does more than create another evangelical prairie fire that burns out in a matter of days. That is what I am praying for myself.

Dr. John Armstrong is president of Act 3 Ministries.