info@9marks.org | http://www.9marks.org

Contents

Editor’s Note

Jonathan Leeman

MEMBERSHIP IN THE BIBLE AND HISTORY

Is Church Membership Biblical?

Is church membership a matter of personal preference or biblical obedience? Matt Chandler says the latter.

By Matt Chandler

Joining a Church the Ancient Way: From Clement to Egeria

In the earliest days of Christianity, people joined the church through catechism, creed, and baptism—in that order. This professor suggests they still should today.

By Michael A.G. Haykin

Church Membership and Contextualization

How do we formulate a contextually-sensitive doctrine of local church membership? By giving attention to biblical universals and cultural particulars.

By Ed Roberts

Book Review: The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love

By Jonathan Leeman

Reviewed by Tim Chester

DOES MEMBERSHIP MATTER?

Meaningless Membership: A Southern Baptist Perspective

What do you get when your denomination has 10 million absentee church members? Sadly, a lot of false assurance, a diluted witness, and some really ugly members’ meetings.

By Al Jackson

Twelve Reasons Why Membership Matters

Church membership is a bigger deal than you might think it is. Here are twelve reasons why.

By Jonathan Leeman

MEMBERSHIP INSTRUCTION FOR PASTORS

Implementing Membership in an Existing Church

When this pastor first arrived at his church, he says, we didn’t know who “we” were. Here are some lessons they learned as they established church membership.

By John Folmar

Implementing Membership in a Church Plant

When should a church plant introduce membership? And why should planters care to institute formal church membership in the first place?

By Mike McKinley

Moving Attenders to Members

How should we help people understand the necessity and joy of belonging to a local assembly of believers? Here are six suggestions.

By Thabiti Anyabwile

What Does the Regulative Principle Require of Church Members?

Since church members are a “captive audience,” church leaders may only require of them what Scripture requires. The regulative principle is not a limiter but the great emancipator of the Christian life.

By Terry Johnson

Cleaning up the Rolls

By Matt Schmucker

Resources on Membership

Q&A’s, audio resources, free membership class materials, and more on church membership.

MISCELLANEOUS BOOK REVIEWS

Review Essay: The Next Christians The Good News about the End of Christian America

By Gabe Lyons

By Owen Strachan

Book Review: The Gospel Commission: Recovering God’s Strategy for Making Disciples

by Michael Horton

Reviewed by Bobby Jamieson

Book Review: Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission

By Robert Plummer

Reviewed by Kevin DeYoung

Book Review: 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible

By Robert Plummer

Reviewed by Jason Meyer

Book Review: Loving the Church: God’s People Flourishing in God’s Family

By John Crotts

Reviewed by Brian Croft

AUDIO – LEADERSHIP INTERVIEWS

The Two Kingdoms and the Natural Law with David VanDrunen

Mark Dever asks David VanDrunen for a tutorial on the complex but important topic of a church’s role in political society. *Listen online Now »

Posted on May 1, 2011

Culture of Discipling with Mark Dever

Mark Dever explains why he prioritizes relationship-building like he does–in the church, between Christians, and among pastors. *Listen online Now »

Posted on March 1, 2011

* This audio might not be supported by your particular device

Jonathan Leeman

Editor’s note:

Evangelicals are good and maybe getting better at talking about the Christian mind, the Christian heart, even the Christian hands and feet. We want to think, feel, and act as Christians.

But what about the skeleton? No one really talks about that. If a skeleton holds things together, what is the structure that holds the Christian life together and gives it its shape?

The thing is, you can (sort of) exercise the Christian head, heart, and hands all by yourself. But when you start to consider what the Bible says about the structure of the Christian life—what I’m calling the skeleton—you find that it necessarily involves other people. And I mean other people in an authoritative capacity.

Christ has authorized the congregation and its leaders to act with authority in our lives. That’s not a popular idea among Westerners, but this is the skeleton which keeps the body, otherwise healthy, from slouching to the floor. It’s the bowl which keeps the soup from spilling everywhere. Looking across the evangelical landscape, do you know what I see? A lot of splattered soup. Oh, it’s tasty soup, but it has nothing to contain it and the dogs have been licking it up for years.

One illustration of this: consider the stereotypical evangelical youth group. You get gospel teaching. Sometimes gospel worldview formation. Sincere professions. And heart-felt worship. But there’s little formal accountability, structure, and discipline because the group is not a part of the church. Result: the kids go to college and the majority abandon the faith or at least live like they have. You can see the splatter.

The real problem is, how many churches operate this way?

That brings us to this episode of the 9Marks’ “Polity is Kool Show.” Today we turn to the theme of church membership. And, boy, do we have a show for you. Several brothers give us a biblical, historical, and sociological look. Several more of us consider the importance of membership. And then a few more offer wise pastoral advice on implementing membership in your church.

Also, watch out early next year for a new 9Marks book on membership for your leaders and members.

By Matt Chandler

Is Church Membership Biblical?

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.”

—Cyprian, Treatise on the Unity of the Church, 6.

I was 28 when I became the pastor of Highland Village First Baptist Church (now known as The Village Church). I had had a rough go early on in my church experience, and at that time I was not fully out of my “disenchanted with the local church” phase.

In all honesty, I wasn’t sure at the time that church membership was biblical. Despite that, the Spirit had made it all too clear that I was going to be pastoring this small church in the suburbs of Dallas. That was one of the many ironies of my life in those days.

Highland Village First Baptist Church was a “seeker-sensitive” church in the Willow Creek mold and had no formal membership process, although they were actively working on one and wanted the new pastor’s input. I had a strong understanding of the church universal but wasn’t well versed—and, as I said, somewhat skeptical—about the church local. We started growing quickly with young and oftentimes disenchanted 20-somethings who usually had no church background, or bad church backgrounds. They liked The Village because we were “different.” This always struck me as strange because we weren’t doing anything but preaching and singing.

In conversations with these men and women I began to hear things like “The church is corrupt; it’s just about money and a pastor’s ego,” or “I love Jesus, it’s the church I have a problem with.” My favorite one was, “When you organize the church it loses its power.” Although something occasionally resonated in me with these comments (I, along with most of my generation, have authority and commitment issues), I found them confusing since they were being made to me by people who were attending the church where I was the pastor.

TWO QUESTIONS FROM HEBREWS 13:17

“Two questions occurred to me. First, if there is no biblical requirement to belong a local church, then which leaders should an individual Christian obey and submit to? Second, and more personally, who will I as a pastor give an account for?”

With conflicts already brewing over other doctrines that I viewed as far more central, I wondered if we should let this church membership thing slide and come back to it later. I was preparing at the time to preach through the book of Hebrews and “happened” to be in chapter 13 when verse 17 leapt off the page: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Two questions occurred to me. First, if there is no biblical requirement to belong a local church, then which leaders should an individual Christian obey and submit to? Second, and more personally, who will I as a pastor give an account for?

These two questions started my search for a biblical understanding of the local church, and they began around the ideas of authority and submission.

Regarding the first question, the Scriptures clearly command Christians to submit to and honor an elder body (Heb. 13:17, 1 Tim. 5:17). If there is no understanding of local church membership, then who are we to submit to and obey? Is it anyone with the title “elder” from any church? Should you as a Christian obey and submit to those loons at Westboro Baptist? In order to obey Scripture, must you picket soldiers’ funerals, as the pastor of Westboro seems to imply?

Regarding the second question, the Scriptures clearly command an elder body to care for specific people (1 Pet. 5:1-5; also, Acts 20:29-30). Will I as a pastor be held accountable for all the Christians in the Dallas Metroplex? There are many churches in Dallas that I have strong theological and philosophical differences with. Will I give account for what they teach in their small group, how they spend their money, and what they do concerning international missions?

WHAT ABOUT CHURCH DISCIPLINE?

After considering questions of authority and submission, the second issue that came up in my study of the local church was the biblical teaching on church discipline.

You see it in several places, but none so clearly as 1 Corinthians 5:1-12. In this text Paul confronts the church in Corinth for approving of a man walking in blatant, unrepentant sexual immorality. The Corinthians are celebrating this as God’s grace, but Paul warns them that this type of wickedness shouldn’t make them boast, but rather mourn. He calls them arrogant and tells them to remove this man for the destruction of his flesh and the hopeful salvation of his soul. In verses 11-12, he pulls no punches: “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?”

It has been my sad experience that very few churches still practice church discipline, but that’s another article for another day. My question out of this text is simple: How can you kick someone “out” if there isn’t an “in”? If there is no local commitment to a covenant community of faith, then how do you remove someone from that community of faith? Church discipline won’t work if local church membership doesn’t exist.

LOTS OF OTHER EVIDENCE FOR MEMBERSHIP

There are other evidences to support local church membership in the Scriptures.

We see in Acts 2:37-47 that there is a numerical record of those who have professed Christ and been filled with the Holy Spirit (v. 41) and an acknowledgement that the church was tracking the growth (v. 47).

In Acts 6:1-6, we see elections take place in order to address a specific problem and accusation.

In Romans 16:1-16, we see what appears to be an awareness of who is a church member.

In 1 Timothy 5:3-16, we see a clear teaching on how to handle widows in the church and in verses 9-13 we read this:

Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.

In this text we see criteria for who would or would not qualify for Ephesus’s widow care program. The local church in Ephesus is organized, and they are working out a plan.

We could go on and on here, asking questions about how we could be obedient to the commands of God in 1 Corinthians 12 or Romans 12 if we aren’t connected to a local covenant community of faith. But to unpack all the possible texts would require longer than I have for this article.

GOD’S PLAN IS THAT WE WOULD BELONG TO LOCAL CHURCHES

When you begin to look at these texts it becomes clear that God’s plan for his church is that we would belong to a local covenant community of faith. This is for our own protection and maturation, and for the good of others.

“When you begin to look at these texts it becomes clear that God’s plan for his church is that we would belong to a local covenant community of faith. This is for our own protection and maturation, and for the good of others.”

If you view church as some sort of ecclesiological buffet, then you severely limit the likelihood of your growing into maturity. Growth into godliness can hurt. For instance, as I interact with others in my own local body, my own slothfulness in zeal is exposed, as is my lack of patience, my prayerlessness, and my hesitancy to associate with the lowly (Rom. 12:11-16). Yet this interaction also gives me the opportunity to be lovingly confronted by brothers and sisters who are in the trenches with me, as well as a safe place to confess and repent. But when church is just a place you attend without ever joining, like an ecclesiological buffet, you just might consider whether you’re always leaving whenever your heart begins to be exposed by the Spirit, and the real work is beginning to happen.

What’s the bottom line? Local church membership is a question of biblical obedience, not personal preference.

About the author:

Matt Chandler is the lead pastor of the Village Church in the Dallas, Texas area.

By Michael A.G. Haykin

Joining a Church the Ancient Way: From Clement to Egeria

How did a person join a congregation in the earliest days of Christianity? From one perspective, the question is easy to answer. Simply put, believer’s baptism was the church’s rite of entry down to the early fourth century.

But—and no surprise here—there was more to it than that.

CONFESSION AND BAPTISM

The New Testament portrays the church as a congregation of believers. What did these believers believe? As the apostles taught, they believed that Jesus is Lord and that he had been raised from the dead (1 Cor. 12:3; 1:2; Rom. 10:9). Further, they believed that Jesus is God himself come in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:1-6). And they believed in the Trinity (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4–6).

In order to join a church, a person had to formally confess this body of truth, “the Faith” (Jude 3; 1 Tim. 1:19), which also included other crucial beliefs such as the return of Christ. This normally took place, it appears, at the time of baptism. During baptism, an individual would recite a creedal statement that contained these key elements of the Christian faith and would give their assent to it (cf. 1 Tim. 6:12).

Thus, inspired by New Testament examples (see, for example, Eph. 4:4–6), creedal statements emerged in the post-apostolic era. For example, Irenaeus (c.130–c. 200), bishop of Lyons, quoted what may have been his own church’s statement of faith in Against Heresies (180), his defense of Christianity against Gnosticism.

It begins by stressing that, contrary to Gnosticism’s view of the world, there is “One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them.” This confession goes on to stress that there is also “One Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation,” who suffered and died, was raised from the dead, ascended “into heaven in the flesh,” and will come again “from heaven in the glory of the Father.” Gnosticism denied all these points, all of which are absolutely central to apostolic Christianity. And someone would have had to affirm this statement of faith in order to be received into the church in Lyons.

THE NEED FOR CATECHISM

As the church evangelized the Graeco-Roman world, it encountered people who were prepared to believe in Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord, yet who were ignorant of Scripture and the theology it contains. So the church needed to instruct or catechize people in the fundamental affirmations of the Christian creed. The church needed to teach people about things like God’s creation of the world, and the life of virtue that flows from a true confession. Catechesis thus had biblical, doctrinal, and moral components.

So, at least by the end of the second century, catechisms and the process of catechizing had developed. For example, the only other extant writing from Irenaeus is a catechism, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (early 190s). The first half of this work details the history of salvation and the second half presents proofs for the truth of Christianity from the Old Testament.

By the following century, there is clear evidence—for example, in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome (c.170–c.236)—that catechizing could take up to three years. And while the person being so instructed, called a catechumen, was regarded as a Christian, he or she could not receive the Lord’s Supper until baptism. As the second-century Christian author Justin Martyr (died c.165) maintained: “no one is allowed to partake” of the Lord’s Supper “except the one who believes what we teach to be true, and who has been washed…and who lives in exactly the way Christ handed down to us” (First Apology, 66).

During the period of catechesis, there was also a time in which catechumens could ask questions of the instructor, who was usually a bishop. The late fourth-century authoress Egeria (flourished 381–384) noted this when she visited Jerusalem. She pointed out that the result of this catechizing was that all of the believers in the Jerusalem churches were able to follow the Scriptures when they were read in the church service. Only with the spread of infant baptism in the fifth and sixth centuries did this process of Christian catechism undergo decline.

A USABLE PAST

“What then does the historical investigation undertaken above mean for our present-day situation? One thing is clear: many parts of a once-Christian West are rapidly being paganized. Thus, the sort of biblical, doctrinal, and moral instruction that the early church found necessary is once more becoming necessary for us.”

When we study the past, we must avoid privileging the questions which our own circumstances prompt. The past must first be understood on its own terms, in relation to the questions that dominated that era. Nevertheless, God has given us history as a vehicle of instruction (we could draw an analogy, for instance, with Romans 15:4). Thus, the search for a “usable past” that sheds light on present circumstances is a legitimate exercise.

What then does the historical investigation undertaken above mean for our present-day situation? One thing is clear: many parts of a once-Christian West are rapidly being paganized. Thus, the sort of biblical, doctrinal, and moral instruction that the early church found necessary is once more becoming necessary for us.

As it was in the earliest days of the Christian faith, so it is again: entry into a local church should be by way of catechism, creed, and baptism—and in that order.

About the author:

Michael A.G. Haykin is Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and is the author of The Christian Lover: The Sweetness of Love and Marriage in the Letters of Believers (Reformation Trust, 2009) and Rediscovering the Church Fathers (Crossway, 2011).

By Ed Roberts

Church Membership and Contextualization

Doing theology involves expressing universal biblical constants in ways that are meaningful in a particular context. Having spent the better part of two decades planting churches in foreign cultures, I could not have avoided this lesson even if I wanted to. Cross-cultural church planters are continually challenged with the need to teach Christian doctrine and at the same time urge contextually meaningful and appropriate applications of that doctrine.

How then do we formulate a contextually-sensitive doctrine of local church membership? That’s the question this article will attempt to answer. Our doctrine of church membership should take us close to a universal biblical constant, but formulating how that doctrine is lived out culturally and contextually introduces all kinds of particular expressions of the universal constant.

A UNIVERSAL BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

Church planters in foreign contexts will want to work together with local believers by examining Scripture and attempting to express a simple doctrine of the local church in appropriate language. This will involve looking not just at texts where the word “church” (ekklesia) is used but reading whole books of the New Testament. The goal here is to tease out what the New Testament says about the believing, identifiable local church. How does it draw a line between insiders and outsiders? Between joiners and unbelievers? It will be important to consider what the text assumes and implies about “membership” in books like Romans, Hebrews, 1 John, and 1 Peter, as well as the household codes at the end of Paul’s letters.

For instance, let me attempt to express for a pioneer context the doctrine (universal biblical constant) of church membership as it might be explained to a first-generation local church:

A local church has an identifiable membership of persons scripturally baptized upon their credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, a credible profession being one which is accompanied by continuing repentance and faith in the gospel. These members are intentional about being a (or the) local assembly in that place. Participation in the benefits of the gospel ordinarily entails joining and covenanting with a local church, where believers seek to live out all of their relationships with humility in light of the gospel as those who whose true home is elsewhere.

Certainly, much more could be said about church membership, such as the regular practice of taking the Lord’s Supper as one benefit of the gospel. But this is just one simple expression of the doctrine of local church membership for a context new to Christianity, a context where the gospel has been unknown for at least several generations.

MEMBERSHIP TERMINOLOGY: JOINERS? MEMBERS? INSIDERS?

The Bible presumes some kind of membership in the local church, but it doesn’t give us a specific word for “membership.” How then shall we speak or write of “membership” in a way that’s meaningfully understood in the culture? The answer depends in part on what words are available to us in the local language. A cross-cultural church planter needs to consider what kinds of memberships already exist in order to compare those with the biblical ideal—especially if we choose a more generic word for membership.

Biblical church membership is a different kind of thing than participation or membership in a local Hindu Ashram, a Buddhist Temple, an Islamic mosque, or a Sufi order. A church planter needs to be aware of these differences.

Household and family life may offer some helpful concepts of “belonging.” But the language of “belonging” does not necessarily capture the idea of “joining,” except maybe in the context of marriage. Yet even here, many cultures have lost track of what Genesis says about leaving one’s family and becoming one—a new family unit.

In short, the biblical doctrine does not change, but one needs to carefully consider how membership words translate into a particular context. In general, a planter will probably want to make use of “joining” language, “partnership” language, and “brotherhood” and “sisterhood” language in order to get at the idea of biblical church membership.

CONTEXTUAL APPLICATION: WRITTEN MEMBERSHIP LISTS AND LETTERS?

In the mobile and diffuse societies of the West, believers are free to gather without official interference or persecution. In such a setting, written membership lists present a fine application of the biblical constants. They might even be necessary in order to enable the congregation and its leaders to keep track of who is and is not a member of the church. The goal of such lists is to distinguish church members from unaccountable professors, and to keep track of who has been correctively disciplined.

“The universal constant is that the local church must know who is a joiner and who is still an outsider. Cultural concerns guide how that constant is applied locally.”

But in a pioneer, restrictive, or hostile context, the few believers probably all know one another. There may be only one local church option, a not-so-public gathering in a local home or apartment. Or there might be a network of local apartment churches. Here, keeping lists of members would be unwise, since it creates an unnecessary risk for the local body when houses are searched and books and papers are confiscated. Further, there are no disconnected believers and the borders of the local church are very clear to all. Persecution clarifies the borders even more. When a person is baptized in such a context, it’s very clear (to insiders and some outsiders) that he now belongs to Christ and this local assembly. Desire for baptism in those contexts is an inherently credible profession of faith. When a believer is chased from his hometown and must identify with another local underground church, he is usually already known by the receiving church. News of persecution travels fast. There is usually no need for a written letter of recommendation. To insist upon one is simply unnecessary.

In a more complex and diverse society where Christianity has been favored and local churches enjoy legal status, written membership lists and letters of transfer are wise applications of identifiable membership.

The universal constant is that the local church must know who is a joiner and who is still an outsider. Cultural concerns guide how that constant is applied locally.

CONTEXTUAL APPLICATION: WRITTEN COVENANTS AND THEIR CONTENT?

To join a local church is to agree to live together with other believers in a way that’s worthy of God’s call to live as a chosen people, royal priesthood, and holy nation. It’s to agree to display God’s glory through gospel-centered living and gospel-centered relationships. In other words, the local church is a community of faith in a hostile world where our relationships with God, one another, and outsiders are uniquely gospel-centered and God-honoring.

In order to clarify those relational responsibilities with particular content, many churches in the history of Christianity have benefitted from using a written church covenant.

The whole tenor of New Testament teaching about the church points to how important it is to be clear about our purposes for gathering and clear about the line between insiders (members) and outsiders (non-members). In one sense, we could say that the entire Bible and particularly the New Testament supplies a church with a complete set of “covenant rules” (purposes and expectations for the church). At the same time, a written covenant serves as a kind of recitable summary of relational expectations for the local church.

The more intentionally biblical the language of a church covenant, the better. House churches, for instance, could collect a series of sentences from the New Testament which describe the duties and privileges of church members with only minor (or perhaps no) adjustments to the language for their church covenant.

A church covenant may be long or short, but it should highlight the relational expectations for church members. It may be written and regularly recited, or memorized, or even sung or chanted, depending upon the culture and literacy level. It may be sung, recited, or read whenever the ordinances of baptism or the Lord’s Supper are observed. Families might use the covenant as a means of teaching children what it means to be a church joiner and how the gospel changes lives and empowers followers of Jesus to live differently in the world.

A church covenant should include both statements or verses that would be included in covenants everywhere, as well as statements that depend on cultural considerations. So all good covenants will describe relational duties in family life, church life, and life in the world. But a church set in a culture that’s openly hostile to Christianity might need a covenant that’s more explicit about love for our enemies, or the call to endure persecution. Covenants in every cultural setting might call for a diligent commitment to bold evangelism and disciple-making, but only some settings might require being explicit about asking members to renounce ancestor worship and superstitious practices. In societies characterized by warring and a fighter mentality, a commitment to peace-making and reconciliation should probably be included. If a covenant were written for Cretans who called themselves liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons, it ought to include a commitment to truth telling, kindness, good works, sobriety, and self control. Covenants in cultures where relationships are routinely sexualized might want to emphasize chaste living, modesty, and avoiding pornography.

Whatever the content, a covenant should emphasize the universal relational ethics of the gospel, and it should be appropriately particularized. It should make good sense to a local church, taking aim at its particularly prevalent relational sins. This balance of universality and particularity helps church members “discipline” one another where they most need it.

CONTEXTUAL APPLICATION: JOINING THE LOCAL CHURCH

In the above statement about the universal biblical constants of local church membership, I did not describe how people should join a local church. That was intentional.

I did mention scriptural baptism, a credible profession of faith, and a life exhibiting continued repentance and faith in Christ. But exactly how local churches in various contexts should examine prospective joiners will probably vary.

Membership interviews by elders make a lot of sense in complex, anonymous societies. But where churches are very small, perhaps the entire church should interview the candidates. Having the whole church hear an individual’s conversion testimony and explanation of the gospel is a good vetting procedure and is very encouraging to the local church.

In conclusion, cross-cultural church planters, like every faithful church leader, must work hard at expressing the universal biblical constants in meaningful doctrinal expressions, even as we work hard to distinguish doctrine from particular and cultural applications of that doctrine. Always, we return prayerfully to the Word for instruction and correction.

About the author:

Ed Roberts has spent the last two decades planting churches in predominantly Muslim nations.

Reviewed by Tim Chester

Book Review: The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love

Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline. Crossway, 2010. 384 pages. $19.99

Oh dear. I was asked to review this book as a “friendly dissenter,” but I have struggled to dissent from it. So now I am worried. Have I missed something? What is it that I am supposed to have objected to? Or what is my reputation that someone should think I would object to Leeman’s argument? The title prepares us to be surprised and offended. My only surprise was that I was not surprised, nor offended! But enough of my angst. I will do my best to take offence later in this review.

“The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love is a theological argument for church membership and church discipline. And in this case the adjective “theological” is well deserved.”

A THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR CHURCH MEMBERSHIP AND DISCIPLINE

The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love is a theological argument for church membership and church discipline. And in this case the adjective “theological” is well deserved.

Commitment

It begins with a helpful reflection on commitment in our culture. Individualism is not a rejection of community, argues Leeman, so much as a rejection of authority. Individualism is the attempt to structure my life according to my word. Church membership, therefore, begins with repentance.

Strange Swipes at People who Emphasize Community

This section is somewhat marred by strange swipes at people who emphasise community. Apparently we are influenced by communitarian philosophy and liberal theology. I had always thought I was influenced by the Bible’s central storyline of God’s purpose to create a people who will be his people, but apparently not. What makes this strange is that more than once Leeman expresses his agreement with the importance of community and relationships, and certainly the rest of the book reflects this, especially his discussion of what church membership involves in the final chapter.

My guess is that the real issue is an emphasis on community as an alternative to an emphasis on the Word. I would argue that you cannot have one without the other. A community which is not created by the Word is at best a social club and so does not do justice to a biblical vision of community. And proclaiming the Word outside of true community means the Word is never spoken to our hearts in the context of everyday life, creating people who are hearers of God’s Word, but not doers of that Word.

God’s Love

Leeman begins his argument proper with a chapter on God’s love. This is superb and should be required reading for anyone studying the doctrine of God, let alone anyone with an interest in church discipline. God’s love, argues Leeman, is more than unconditional gift. True love affirms the beloved. In the case of God’s love, his love centers on himself. He loves me not because I am lovely (and so from my perspective it is unconditional), but because Christ is lovely and I am in Christ. All love is likewise oriented to God and the good of the other. So corrective discipline is not unloving, as our culture assumes, but an expression of true love.

Authority

Chapter 3 moves on to a discussion of authority. Authority, argues Leeman, is “the authorization we have from God to create and give order to life” (140). We rightly mistrust authority because sinful people so often misuse it. But Christ’s life, death and resurrection present a different model of authority. He is the King who gives his life for his people. The move I found particularly helpful was Leeman’s argument that the church is the new reality created by Christ’s authority. Therefore, submission to the church as it proclaims Christ’s Word is where my submission to Christ is exercised in concrete terms.

Key Biblical Passages on Membership and Discipline

Leeman then considers the key biblical passages (Matthew 16, 18, 28, and to a lesser extent 1 Corinthians 5). Christ, he concludes, “authorizes the local church to proclaim and protect the gospel, to recognize or affirm those who belong to him, to unite them to itself, to oversee their discipleship, and to exclude any impostors” (169). This matters not just for the sake of church members, but because the church proclaims and displays gospel love.

The New Covenant and Church Covenants

This is followed by a chapter on covenants which, I must confess, lost me somewhat. It consists of an exposition of the New Covenant and its relation to the Old. So far, so good. But this appears to be constructed as an argument for church covenants. Leeman talks of “a covenant-like commitment” that believers make towards one another in the local church—though it is clear that his preference is for written church covenants (without the “-like”). Yet he distinguishes church covenants from the New Covenant. Perhaps the argument is simply that membership is covenant-like and this is what covenants look like, but Leeman seems to be suggesting something more than this.

Application

The final two chapters move to application. Again, there is much to commend. The discussion of how context affects the practice of membership is handled well—those tempted to skip the three cases studies in chapter six would be well advised not to do so. A number of “What about …” questions are handled well. The short discussion on the nature of Christian freedom is worth the purchase price in itself. And the section on how membership means giving ourselves (and not just “of ourselves”) physically, socially, affectionately, financially, vocationally, ethically and spiritually would be great to read with members of your church. I was particularly challenged by his argument that resignation from membership can only be by mutual consent. It cannot be used to pre-empt church discipline or avoid reconciliation. If someone attempts to resign in order to escape discipline, then the church should enact church discipline in any case.

TWO HESITATIONS

I have two hesitations about the book. They are both issues of emphasis rather than argument and in both cases they reflect a concern that the book does not go far enough.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper vs. Classes, Covenants, and Lists

First, the theological sections speak of baptism as the initial act of joining the church and communion as the ongoing act of belonging to the church. But in the “practical” chapters, this emphasis disappears and is replaced by an emphasis on membership covenants, membership lists, and membership classes. We are told such things are not required by Scripture, but they are clearly preferred by Leeman (the prose is suddenly littered with the words “prudent” and “prudential”).

I have no objection to classes, covenants or lists. But they are non-biblical categories. Leeman concedes this, though keeps saying the New Testament strongly implies their use. But the clear New Testament categories are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Your membership roll is the people who partake of the Lord’s Supper together. If you want to write their names down on a list then so be it, but let the definition be shaped by the table. Church discipline in the New Testament is not taking someone off a list, but excluding someone from the table. If your church is so big that you cannot name the people who routinely participate in the Lord’s Supper, then it is hard to see how effective discipline can take place. If you cope with numbers by discipling people through some kind of small groups, then make this the context for the Lord’s Supper and for church discipline.

This helps with another concern that Leeman highlights. He criticizes the “belonging before believing” rubric. In our church, we encourage people to involve their unbelieving friends into the life of the community because this is where people see how we love one another (John 13:34-35) and where they see the gospel adorned. They are therefore encouraged to “belong” to the community in the sense of sharing in its common life. But their need to belong to Christ and his people is regularly enacted—not by their exclusion from a list in a drawer somewhere, but publicly, whenever we share the Lord’s Supper. It allows us to create a culture that welcomes unbelievers into our common life without compromising the call for faith and repentance.

Needs More on the “Countless Acts of Love and Discipline”

Second, Leeman says that “discipleship works through countless acts of love and discipline, both formative and corrective” (312). This is the one area where I think he needed to elaborate more. I recognize that criticizing a book for what it does not say is often a cheap shot—a book cannot be expected to say everything. But I believe that “countless acts of discipline” are central to Leeman’s stated intent. Church discipline is much more than excommunication and the processes leading up to it. Indeed, excommunication often arises because the “countless acts” of corrective discipline have not been taking place. Sin and unbelief go unchallenged until the situation is beyond recovery. “Exhort one another every day … that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. 3:13). We need churches in which rebuke and exhortation are normal, expected and welcome. I am sure Leeman would agree, but I would argue that this is where we need to begin if we are going to create the disciplined churches Leeman rightly desires.

About the author:

Tim Chester is Director of The Porterbrook Institute (www.porterbrookinstitute.org) and a church planter with The Crowded House (www.thecrowdedhouse.org). He is author of a number of books, including You Can Change (Crossway) and A Meal With Jesus (Crossway).

By Al Jackson

Meaningless Church Membership: An SBC Perspective

What do Britney Spears, Brad Pitt, Bill Clinton and Al Gore have in common? If you answer, “All four have been members of Southern Baptist churches,” you move to the head of the class.

These four individuals are found in the branch of Christianity that also includes Al Mohler, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Bowden, and Billy Graham, among others. Our Southern Baptist churches include their share of prominent personalities. Some bring honor to our denomination. Others bring dishonor.

MEANINGLESS CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IN THE SBC

The purpose of this article is to answer the question, How has meaningless church membership adversely affected the Southern Baptist Convention?

The question assumes that membership in many Southern Baptist churches has little impact on how those members think or live. Historically, Baptists have affirmed regenerate church membership, which implies that every church member should walk in holiness and purity. Yet the widespread reality today is otherwise. A person can walk in ways that bring great shame to the name of Christ and yet remain a member in good standing in a Southern Baptist church.

The meaninglessness of membership can be seen in the number of Southern Baptist church members compared with the number of people attending Sunday worship. Convention-wide, there are 16 million members. But only 6 million people show up on a typical Sunday. Where are the other 10 million Southern Baptists? Some are providentially hindered, but surely not 10 million.

Apparently, the twentieth-century Southern Baptist revivalist Vance Havner was right when he said, “We Southern Baptists are many but we’re not much.” After the convention-wide crusade to add one million new members to Sunday School rolls in 1954— “A Million More in ’54”— Havner famously said, “If we get a million more like we got in ’54, we’re sunk.”

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF MEANINGLESS MEMBERSHIP?

The Southern Baptist Convention is most likely far smaller than what we report. And our membership rolls most likely contain a multitude of unregenerate individuals. Our Baptist forefathers would view our present condition with shock and horror.

What are the consequences of such meaningless membership?

It Gives a False Assurance of Salvation to Multitudes

First, the failure to practice church discipline and maintain integrity in our church rolls gives the multitude of “inactive members” a false assurance of salvation.

“We often say that we love inactive members too much to discipline them. Actually, our lack of discipline reveals our lack of love for these people who give little or no evidence of the new birth.”

It is common for a man or woman to join a Southern Baptist church, but then to stop participating in worship and fellowship—sometimes for decades. Yet when the church says or does nothing, the individual continues to believe he or she is saved. This is the case because of our refusal to obey God in the matter of discipline.

We often say that we love inactive members too much to discipline them. Actually, our lack of discipline reveals our lack of love for these people who give little or no evidence of the new birth. Many such people are under the just condemnation of a holy God. This is the greatest and most grievous consequence of allowing them to maintain church membership without church involvement.

It Harms Our Gospel Witness

Second, the fact that so many Southern Baptists live in open disobedience to God’s commands and have little involvement with their fellow members greatly harms our denomination’s gospel witness.

Hypocrisy within our churches is common, and Southern Baptist churches almost universally fail to practice church discipline. As a result, Christ’s bride is stained and soiled when she should be progressing toward radiance, holiness, and blamelessness.

Church history professor Tom Nettles has said that “holiness should pave the way for evangelism.” In other words, the holy lives of a congregation should undergird its gospel witness. Those who proclaim the gospel of God’s saving grace in Christ Jesus should be able to point to an assembly of believers who are new creations in Christ.

Sadly, many lost men and women have been able to point to their own moral superiority when comparing themselves with the immoral and deceitful lives of church members. As a result, they feel justified for not trusting in Christ.

It Makes for Some Ugly Business Meetings

Third, meaningless church membership periodically reveals its ugly face at church business meetings.

The typical Southern Baptist congregational meeting is characterized by routine motions and decisions. However, occasionally, when the Spirit begins to move in God-glorifying ways, unregenerate church members who haven’t been seen for years suddenly appear at business meetings. The result is not pretty. God-glorifying initiatives are halted, and godly pastors are often voted out. The occasions on which this has happened are too numerous to count.

It Hinders our Missionary Efforts

Fourth, meaningless membership in Southern Baptist churches hinders our efforts to declare God’s glory to the nations.

Yes, it is true that we have the largest number of missionaries worldwide of any American denomination. Our 5,000 International Mission Board missionaries span the globe. Yet this translates to one missionary for every nine Southern Baptist churches. In light of the Bible’s clear teaching on missions, is it unrealistic to think that every church should have a least one missionary serving internationally? More than 30,000 Southern Baptist churches have no missionary from their ranks. How can this be? Where is the passion to declare God’s glory among the nations?

Consider one other missionary statistic: Southern Baptists gave approximately $150 million last year to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions. Southern Baptists tend to take some satisfaction in knowing that the Lottie Moon Offering is the largest missionary offering in the two thousand year history of Christianity. But do the math and divide $150 million by 16 million Southern Baptists. You get less than $10 per Baptist. Apparently, obeying Jesus’ last command to “go and make disciples of all nations” means very little to many.

“Vance Havner’s diagnosis from fifty years ago—‘Southern Baptists are many but we’re not much’—is as true today as it was then.”

WHAT SHALL WE DO? RECOVER MEANINGFUL MEMBERSHIP

The picture I have attempted to paint in this article is a dismal one. Vance Havner’s diagnosis from fifty years ago—“Southern Baptists are many but we’re not much”—is as true today as it was then. The greatest tragedy of meaningless church membership is that God’s glory in his church is diminished.

A recovery of meaningful church membership is desperately needed in the Southern Baptist Convention. Perhaps then we will know something more of “him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us. To him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever! Amen” (Eph. 3:20-21).

About the author:

Al Jackson is the senior pastor of Lakeview Baptist Church in Auburn, Alabama.

By Jonathan Leeman

Twelve Reasons Why Membership Matters

(The following is excerpted from Jonathan Leeman’s forthcoming book What Is Church Membership? from Crossway, 2012).

1. It’s biblical. Jesus established the local church and all the apostles did their ministry through it. The Christian life in the New Testament is church life. Christians today should expect and desire the same.

2. The church is its members. To be “a church” in the New Testament is to be one of its members (read through Acts). And you want to be part of the church because that’s who Jesus came to rescue and reconcile to himself.

3. It’s a pre-requisite for the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a meal for the gathered church, that is, for members (see 1 Cor. 11:20, 33). And you want to take the Lord’s Supper. It’s the team “jersey” which makes the church team visible to the nations.

4. It’s how to officially represent Jesus. Membership is the church’s affirmation that you are a citizen of Christ’s kingdom and therefore a card-carrying Jesus Representative before the nations. And you want to be an official Jesus Representative. Closely related to this…

5. It’s how to declare one’s highest allegiance. Your membership on the team, which becomes visible when you wear the “jersey,” is a public testimony that your highest allegiance belongs to Jesus. Trials and persecution may come, but your only words are, “I am with Jesus.”

“The very boundaries which are drawn around the membership of a church yields a society of people which invites the nations to something better.”

6. It’s how to embody and experience biblical images. It’s within the accountability structures of the local church that Christians live out or embody what it means to be the “body of Christ,” the “temple of the Spirit,” the “family of God,” and so on for all the biblical metaphors (see 1 Cor. 12). And you want to experience the interconnectivity of his body, the spiritual fullness of his temple, and the safety and intimacy and shared identity of his family.

7. It’s how to serve other Christians. Membership helps you to know which Christians on Planet Earth you are specifically responsible to love, serve, warn, and encourage. It enables you to fulfill your biblical responsibilities to Christ’s body (for example, see Eph. 4:11-16; 25-32).

8. It’s how to follow Christian leaders. Membership helps you to know which Christian leaders on Planet Earth you are called to obey and follow. Again, it allows you to fulfill your biblical responsibility to them (see Heb. 13:7; 17).

9. It helps Christian leaders lead. Membership lets Christian leaders know which Christians on Planet Earth they will “give an account” for (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2).

10. It enables church discipline. It gives you the biblically prescribed place to participate in the work of church discipline responsibly, wisely, and lovingly (1 Cor. 5).

11. It gives structure to the Christian life. It places an individual Christian’s claim to “obey” and “follow” Jesus into a real-life setting where authority is actually exercised over us (see John 14:15; 1 John 2:19; 4:20-21).

12. It builds a witness and invites the nations. Membership puts the alternative rule of Christ on display for the watching universe (see Matt. 5:13; John 13:34-35; Eph. 3:10; 1 Peter 2:9-12). The very boundaries which are drawn around the membership of a church yields a society of people which invites the nations to something better.

About the author:

Jonathan Leeman is the author of The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing Church Membership and Discipline (Crossway, 2010) and is the editorial director for 9Marks.

By John Folmar

Implementing Membership in an Existing Church

“How can we get involved in ministry in this church?”

The seasoned couple wanted to begin serving that very day—hosting small groups, leading Bible studies, anything. Encouraged by their enthusiasm, I simply urged them to continue coming along and getting to know the church better. The fact is, new attenders shouldn’t be serving the church in any official ways, from serving coffee to volunteering with childcare.

“When I began pastoring the United Christian Church of Dubai in 2005, we didn’t know who “we” were.”

This isn’t because we’re mean or unwelcoming. It’s because we believe the most important question that should confront a new person attending any church is this: Where do you stand with God? Have you been forgiven of your sins and adopted into his family? Until you address these issues, your service in the church may simply distract you from these most important questions.

WE DIDN’T KNOW WHO “WE” WERE

When I began pastoring the United Christian Church of Dubai in 2005, we didn’t know who “we” were.

There was no list stating who was and was not a member in good standing of our church. There were just several hundred people showing up on a weekly basis, some regularly, some not. People who had never committed to the church were not only serving coffee, they were leading small groups. The elders didn’t know it, but some of these official leaders held unorthodox views like universalism and modalism. They had never been vetted through any membership process.

Paul instructed the Ephesian elders: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28). Without membership, how could we know who that flock was so we could pray for them and care for them? Is it just those people who happened to appear at our weekly gatherings? Hebrews 13:17 says we will “give an account” for the flock entrusted to us. Thus, it’s important to know who they are.

This is why my church began to observe formal church membership six years ago. By establishing membership, the elders could know and care for the flock entrusted to them.

RUNNING INTO TURBULENCE

Everyone at UCCD was fine with membership as long as it remained optional. No one objected to membership for leaders only, or for the extra-committed, or as a new management technique. But when we presented membership as an expectation for all the believers of our congregation, we hit turbulence. Many people didn’t understand or agree that membership was a biblical expectation. Some even considered it to be legalistic, divisive, or exclusive.

The interview process for new members was especially contested. One person wrote, “I have never been to a church where you feel like you are required to pass the test as a Christian in order to belong to the family. The whole church experience is meant to be a loving and caring experience…Surely you first lovingly invite the members into the church and then if you feel they need guidance or further mentoring to grow as Christians then you can set something up. We have felt like we have had to meet the grade before we can belong to the UCCD church and I’m pretty sure that this is not the way God intended it to be.”

MEMBERSHIP: THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT TOOL FOR REFORM

Six years later, in spite of these objections, we have found that biblical church membership has been vital to strengthening our church. In fact, aside from the preaching of the Word, I believe the most important way to reform a congregation is to implement membership.

LESSONS LEARNED ALONG THE WAY

Here are some lessons we learned along the way.

1. Teach on it first.

The surest way to alienate a congregation is to begin changing the culture of the church without laying out a biblical case for the change. Paul exhorted Timothy to minister with “great patience and careful instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2). If your church existed for years without biblical membership, then it may take years to see true biblical change.

2. Preach expositionally.

As people grow spiritually through hearing the Word preached every week, they will be more receptive to biblical arguments for church government, and indeed for all of life. “The Spirit gives life” (John 6:63), and he uses the Word to do it.

3. Raise the bar on what it means to be a Christian.

Highlight God’s holiness in your preaching, along with the corresponding demand that God’s people reflect his character (e.g., 1 Pet. 1:16).

Through a steady diet of expositional preaching, point out church discipline in the New Testament (see, for example, Gal. 6:1-2, 2 Thess. 3:6-15, 1 Tim. 5:19-20, Tit. 3:10-11, Jude 22-23, etc.). Eventually people may wonder why they haven’t seen discipline in their church lately. Church discipline is the clearest evidence in the Bible for church membership (for example, Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5; also 2 Cor. 2:6).

A church is an identifiable group of believers who are self-consciously committed to each other. Their lives are not perfect, but by God’s grace they are substantially, observably different from the world around them. As you underscore what it means to be God’s “holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9), membership will begin to make more sense.

4. Make corporate application in your sermons.

Don’t only apply Scripture to individual believers. Ask people to consider what a passage says to the church as a whole. Over time this will affect their orientation toward community and covenantal responsibility one with another.

5. Spread this vision among elders and other leaders.

Hand out Mark Dever’s brief booklet A Display of God’s Glory to up-and-coming leaders in your church. If your leaders prefer comedy, try Mike McKinley’s Church Planting is for Wimps. Talk them through the arguments for a biblically ordered congregation.

6. Model robust community in your own life.

Make your life a microcosm of the strong corporate community you desire to see in your church. Be hospitable. Go to lunch with men who are responding to your ministry. Begin to build a core community that recognizes the value of accountability and fellowship. Start small, and be patient and prayerful in your interactions with others.

7. Pray that God would enrich the relationships in your church so that membership would make sense.

Without genuine Christian community, membership is just a shell. We are dependent on the Holy Spirit to create the brotherly affection and maintain the unity which membership so beautifully displays. Be much in prayer for the fellowship and relationships in your church. Encourage spiritual conversations. As relationships deepen in your church, confession of sin and correction will become more normal.

8. Implement a church covenant to highlight corporate responsibility.

A covenant is a promise each member makes to love and care for the church. And it specifies the obligations believers have to one another. If your church is more than 50 years old, you may already have a covenant lying around in storage somewhere. Dust it off and re-introduce it to your church, but only after you’ve taught on the concepts at length. If you don’t have one, consider this one.

In order to make sure the covenant is actually a “living” document in your church, recite it together before the Lord’s Supper or members’ meetings. True membership is comprised of those who have self-consciously covenanted with others in your church. Without a covenant and membership, your church may be just a preaching point.

9. Prepare for objections.

Objection #1: We’ve never done this before.

Answer: Allow the Bible, not tradition, to establish what you do in church. Consider the prevalence of church discipline in the New Testament (e.g., Matt. 18:15-17, 1 Cor. 5, 2 Cor. 2:6). If one can be put out of an identifiable assembly, one can also be put in. That’s membership. And the New Testament assumes that all Christians are members of churches.

Objection #2: Membership is legalistic and unloving.

Answer: It can be, but it isn’t necessarily, and it shouldn’t be. In fact, allowing someone to remain comfortably a part of your church without ever confronting the question of where he or she stands with God is perhaps the most unloving thing you can ever do. Admittedly, membership alone won’t cause your congregation to be more loving, but it should be a potent display of Spirit-wrought community.

Objection #3: It’s too time-consuming.

At the end of a busy elders’ meeting, who wants to devote attention to a dozen new-member interview forms and talk through individual details, lives and testimonies? An elder once asked me, “Can’t we delegate this to a deacon?”

“Another reason to practice church membership is that it front-loads the most important questions. The screening process and the pastoral contact are vital for the church.”

Answer: An elder’s fundamental calling is not to administer programs but to “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28). What could be more integral to such a calling than seeing new members in and old members out?

MEMBERSHIP FRONT-LOADS THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Another reason to practice church membership is that it front-loads the most important questions. The screening process and the pastoral contact are vital for the church.

One man from Yemen pursued membership at UCCD, but based on the interview he clearly wasn’t a believer. Alerted to this fact, we began to work with him on basic gospel truths. Now he’s a thriving Christian sharing the gospel with others. When another man from South Africa went through the membership process, he was unable to explain the gospel clearly, although he seemed to believe the Truth and gave evidence of fruit of faith. After a couple more intentional conversations and John Stott’s Basic Christianity, his faith began to deepen and flourish. Now he serves faithfully as a deacon in our church. Many more people have been saved and strengthened through the membership process at UCCD.

Of course, not everyone is persuaded.

Three years ago a husband who was unhappy with our membership process wrote to the elders regarding his wife, who had been unsettled after her membership interview. “The whole experience has had her questioning the Christian faith,” he said.

Little did he realize that that is exactly what membership is supposed to do.

It’s supposed to cause us to examine our faith (2 Cor. 13:5). Why? Not because we pastors are abrasive or insensitive or unsympathetic. Not because we believe we are better than others, or we sit in judgment over people’s faith. Rather, we should allow the process of church membership to cause us to examine our faith because the question “Am I really a Christian?” is one of the most important questions we can ever face.

About the author:

John Folmar is the pastor of United Christian Church of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

By Mike McKinley

Implementing Membership in a Church Plant

It’s hard to know when and how a church plant should establish a formal membership.

At their inception, most church plants are not able to act as fully functioning congregations. In the absence of formal church membership, the church cannot exercise church discipline or administer the Lord’s Supper or baptism in a biblical way. So planters should feel a burden to establish membership as soon as it’s doable.

But what does it look like to move from a start-up to a congregation with membership?

THE BENEFITS OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IN A CHURCH PLANT

Some church planting strategists teach that membership is tangential to the goal of church planting. After all, church planters should be calling people to participate in the life and mission of the church. That participation, they argue, is best manifested in actions, rather than formal membership agreements.

But establishing formal membership provides at least three benefits for a new church:

1. Membership Calls Attenders to Ramp up their Commitment.

First, establishing church membership calls regular attenders to ramp up their commitment to the church.

When a planter begins a new work, a number of people will likely begin to attend in order to check out what’s going on. But it can be difficult to know whether those people can be counted on to take part in the life of the church.

Establishing church membership gives those people a “fish or cut bait” moment. It removes ambiguity about their relationship to the congregation. And it calls them to commit fully to the work of the church.

“Membership requires commitment, and it clarifies in biblical terms what it means to be a part of the church. When someone moves from being a visitor to a member, they are promising to love and care and pray for the other people in the church.”

2. Membership Increases Accountability.

Second, establishing church membership increases the accountability among the congregation and between the congregation and the leadership.

Membership requires commitment, and it clarifies in biblical terms what it means to be a part of the church. When someone moves from being a visitor to a member, they are promising to love and care and pray for the other people in the church.

Membership also enables planters to know who they are responsible to care for and oversee. And it enables planters to hold people accountable to their commitments.

3. Membership Enables the Church to Fulfill its Biblical Responsibilities.

Third, establishing church membership enables the church to fulfill all its biblical responsibilities.

Without church membership, baptism and the Lord’s Supper lose an important part of their meaning (baptism as the means of entrance into the covenant community and the Lord’s Supper as the sign of ongoing participation in that community). In addition, commands like Hebrews 13:17 (“Obey your leaders”) and 1 Corinthians 5:13 (“Purge the immoral person from among you”) can only be obeyed when the “you” of the church is clearly defined.

WHEN TO ESTABLISH CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

The timing for moving to church membership will vary depending on circumstances. If the plant goes out from an established church and has a sizeable core group, it may be wise to immediately recognize the people in that launch team as the membership of the new church. If a planter is working in a “parachute plant”—where he goes into a location with no team and every member is a new convert—some time may have to pass before he is able to constitute the church and formalize membership.

Here are four issues that the planter should be aware of as he seeks to establish membership, listed in descending order of importance:

1. The ability to discern the credibility of the people’s profession of faith.

In order to have a church, you need Christians. And so a planter looking to move towards formal church membership will need to be able to discern that there are people in his meeting who are genuinely converted. This means that the potential members must understand what it means to be a Christian, be able to give expression to their faith, and have adequate time for their faith to be shown in a changed life.

2. Agreement on a statement of faith.

Though no church has unanimous agreement on every doctrinal issue, a congregation should have a baseline of consensus on essential issues such as the gospel, the Scriptures, the nature of the church, and the nature of the Christian life. It is important not to wait too long before establishing a statement of faith, because you may find it difficult to achieve a consensus once the church is larger.

At the least, you should make your doctrinal convictions widely known from the outset of the plant. For example, if you are a Baptist, and you know that when the church constitutes it will be a Baptist church, it’s good to make that clear from the beginning. I would suggest that you take your trendy new church name and affix the word “Baptist” to it, giving you something like “Kairos Baptist Church.” Otherwise, you might wind up in a bait and switch situation where people have become involved in the life of the congregation but may not be able to join it because of doctrinal differences.

Also, I would recommend using a statement of faith that has stood the test of time rather than writing your own from scratch. It shouldn’t be hard to find one that will fit the bill. If you can’t find one that works for you, you are probably either a heretic or “just one of those people” (if you catch my drift). You wife can probably help you determine which.

3. Agreement on a church covenant.

A church covenant is an agreement that defines the responsibilities and privileges of membership. While it is not absolutely necessary to have a formal document that outlines these things, there is a reason why churches have benefited from spelling out these responsibilities in advance. At the very least, the new members of the church will need to know what is expected of them.

4. Church bylaws and governing documents.

While few things are as boring as church bylaws, it is helpful to have them in place when you institute church membership in your plant. In this way, the means of taking in and removing members in clearly established. It is also a good idea to establish at the outset how leaders will be recognized and how decisions will be made by the membership.

As a planter, you will need to decide which of these four things you need before you are comfortable establishing church membership. Once you have those things in place, you should move forward.

CONCLUSION

Church membership may not seem very important at the outset of a church plant. But at some point in the process, the congregation will need to know who “they” are, so that they can fulfill the biblical commands for the church.

About the author:

Mike McKinley is the pastor of Guildford Baptist Church in Sterling, Virginia, and is the author of Church Planting is for Wimps (Crossway, 2010) and Am I Really a Christian? (Crossway, forthcoming).

By Thabiti Anyabwile

From Attender to Member

One practical challenge that we as pastors face is how to encourage a church attender toward active church membership. How should we help individuals understand the necessity and joy of belonging to a local assembly of believers?

SIX SUGGESTIONS FOR MOVING PEOPLE FROM ATTENDER TO MEMBER

Here are six suggestions. The first four aim at creating an environment where membership is valued and understood. The last two involve caring for specific individuals who need to make the transition from simply attending to active membership.

1. Get to know the current members.

Before we can effectively move people from church attenders to church members, we have to know our current members. Otherwise, the idea of “membership” remains amorphous even to the pastor promoting it.

“Likewise, when we speak of belonging to a local church, we ought to have in mind belonging to a particular family of people—real, known, and loved people. We’re inviting an attender to become a part of this living, breathing family.”

Imagine inviting a visitor to have dinner with you and your family on Saturday afternoon. The visitor arrives, expecting to meet your wife and children, but then you lead him or her through the home asking everyone their name and whether they’re visitors too or whether they live there. The so-called “introduction” to your family completely falsifies the claim to being family.

Likewise, when we speak of belonging to a local church, we ought to have in mind belonging to a particular family of people—real, known, and loved people. We’re inviting an attender to become a part of this living, breathing family. Our invitation has faces and names. If we know those faces, names, and lives, then we’ll be better able to introduce the attender to the family.

2. Express genuine appreciation for the current members.

Frankly, I blew this opportunity when I became senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman. I arrived full of zeal and ready to put my shoulder to the plow. I looked forward to loving and serving the people, but I failed to sufficiently recognize something: the people of First Baptist had been here long before I arrived. They were already serving the Lord in countless ways. And they didn’t just need the kind of love that I wanted to give. They needed the kind that slowed down to see their service; the kind that expresses genuine thanksgiving for the grace of God already at work in them.

Instead, the congregation too often heard me offer suggestions for improvements and ideas for new ventures. This communicated dissatisfaction and a lack of appreciation. I hurt some people and turned off others. Some extended me a lot of grace, assuming I meant well. And I did. But the better way to express those good intentions would have been to express gratitude and appreciation for everything positive that I saw.

I wish I had taken the first two to four years of my ministry to specifically, genuinely, and repeatedly encourage, give thanks, and appreciate the many wonderful people and acts of service in the church. We have Sunday School teachers who have served twenty consecutive years; individuals who have quietly cared for poor single mothers; leaders who have weathered difficult storms over years of leadership; cancer survivors who have battled disease with real faith; wives and husbands who have remained faithful to unbelieving and sometimes unkind spouses; members who have given cheerfully and sacrificially; and many others who have pursued Christ-like lives.

Had I been careful to get to know the congregation and to observe their faith in action, I would have had years’ worth of sermon illustrations, opportunities to write notes of encouragement, and opportunities to praise God’s work. And had I used those illustrations, written those notes, and given that public and personal praise, I would have set a tone of encouragement, grace, and thanksgiving. This would have both built up the existing members and made membership attractive to the attender. People want to belong to groups that encourage and lift up. Churches and pastors should be best at doing this.

3. Paint a biblical vision of healthy Christian living.

One thing we can assume about the Christian who regularly attends church but does not join is that his or her view of the Christian life is defective somewhere.

We can we assume this? We can because the Scriptures say the local church is God’s plan for our discipleship and spiritual maturity (Eph. 4:11-16; cf. Matt. 28:18-20). As social beings, we need community. God provides for this in the local church, where we rejoice with those who rejoice, mourn with those who mourn, and show equal concern for one another (1 Cor. 12:12-27).

For reasons that will require pastoral investigation, the church attender hasn’t fully embraced a church-centered vision of the Christian life. Our task as pastors is to preach and teach in a way that conveys a biblical view of the local church, making the local church beautiful and desirable to God’s people.

We need to help the attender—and existing members—understand what being “in” the church means and why being “outside” is unhealthy. If we don’t, we leave them with their incomplete ideas about the church. Even worse, we may leave them thinking that the only “benefit” of membership is discipline and unpleasantness.

We could respond to this need by preaching a topical series on the church or spiritual fellowship. Or, we could take a slow walk through letters like Ephesians or 1 Timothy, where the Bible paints compelling pictures of church life. Or, in the course of expositing other books of the Bible, we can make applications to membership wherever legitimate so that the members and attenders see the thread of belonging and community throughout the Bible. In all of this, we want to provide a high and attractive view of the local church in all of its glory and messiness.

4. Strengthen the borders of the church.

One consequence of teaching people the “ins” and “outs” of membership should be to strengthen the borders between the church and the world by restricting certain activities only to members.

Throughout Scripture, God’s covenant community separates from the world. And he gives them certain activities like circumcision or the Passover which, along with their other purposes, mark them off from the world. The borders between Israel and the world were to be drawn deep, and belonging to the covenant community acquired definite shape and meaning. It was a terrible thing to be “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).

Even secular organizations and businesses have rules for who is “in” and who is “out.” At Christmas, one of my elders attended an office Christmas party at a local restaurant and pub. He noticed a table of patrons having drinks. From time to time, one of the patrons would pass a mug out the restaurant window to another man standing outside. Later he found out that the man outside was not allowed to enter the restaurant because of unruly behavior in the past. My fellow elder laughed out loud, recognizing that even worldly people have standards for belonging and reserve certain benefits for those inside.

In the same way, for attenders to sense the importance of membership, and for those outside the faith altogether to see that they are “separated from Christ,” the borders between the church and the world need to be strengthened. To this end, pastors and congregations should identify which activities and opportunities are restricted to members. Can non-members teach Sunday school? May they join the choir? Can they join small groups or travel with mission teams? Will you invite professing Christians who are not members of any local church to observe the Lord’s Supper?

Deciding which privileges and responsibilities belong to the church members alone helps to demonstrate why being “in” matters and what people will lose by staying “outside” the church’s membership.

5. Do the personal work of answering objections and encouraging people to join.

After working for a couple years to create an environment where membership is valued and meaningful, we can do much more effective personal work with our attenders. In fact, we hope that, having grown in appreciation for the local church, the congregation itself will do most of the personal work.

This personal work involves at least two things:

Developing a way of identifying and getting to know attenders.

Answering an attender’s objection to joining.

When I worked in policy advocacy, we utilized a simple tool called a “move chart.” A move chart was an excel spreadsheet that listed key policy makers in a column on the left and their current position on a policy issue across the top. In a simple form, we’d label their positions from “strong opposition” to “neutral” to “strong support.” As we worked with policymakers, we’d note their movement along the continuum.

Whether pastors create a move chart on paper or in their heads, they need a way to identify whether attenders are “strongly opposed,” “never thought of it,” or “plan to join next week.” Hopefully the preaching and community will do the personal work in many cases, especially among attenders who are already motivated to join. But among attenders with questions and hesitations, more care is needed.

Here’s where the command to “show hospitality” (Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9) reaps dividends in helping people commit. Open homes tend to produce open hearts—or at least open mouths! We can move from conversations following church services to more intentional discussions over meals. If we are patient and thoughtful in those conversations, we may shepherd the attender through pains, disappointments, questions, and fears toward committed belonging. The aim is not to “win” a membership argument, but to practically love the person in word and deed until the Lord grants light and love.

6. Encourage the attender to settle at another local church if not your own.

Finally, we must remember that the Lord has other faithful pastors and congregations. We should rejoice in that fact. We’re not in competition with those churches, but partners with them in the gospel.

From time to time we may encounter an attender whose objections to joining our church appear insurmountable. Perhaps he disagrees with us about some important doctrine or practice. Or maybe she lives closer to another faithful congregation and can be more actively involved there. In those cases, helping such people move from attender to member might involve helping them join a local church other than our own.

This can be emotional for some people—especially those who’ve developed an attachment to the church but have never joined. Such situations require pastoral patience and empathy. But we do this for the good of the attender, desiring what we know God demands of him or her—active membership—which is better by far. We’re trying to promote the gospel, not our own churches. We’re trying to grow Christians, not our membership rolls. Sometimes that means helping people join elsewhere while we continue to shepherd the flock God has placed under our care (1 Pet. 5:1-4).

CONCLUSION

It’s tempting for pastors to feel inconvenienced by those believers who attend but seem never to join. We can be frustrated when things that seem basic to us are neglected by others. We have to guard our hearts against impatience and self-righteousness. While we give the bulk of our time to our members because we are accountable for them in a greater way, the attenders at our church need our ministry, too. Moving people from attendance to membership is an opportunity to love. In a real sense, it is the ministry.

About the author:

Thabiti Anyabwile is the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands and the author of What Is a Healthy Church Member? (Crossway).

By Terry Johnson

What Does the Regulative Principle Require of Church Members?

Years ago I attended a Sunday night service at one of the largest and most prestigious evangelical churches in Southern California. Attendance in the evenings had begun to wane in recent years, so a more informal approach was being tested. The college pastor was leading the service. After the opening exercises he had us all stand, turn 90 degrees, and give the person next to us a standing back massage.

It was a bit disorienting to be giving back massages in such a grand sanctuary, right there in the pews. But there was more. He then directed us to turn to the persons on either side of us, look into their eyes, and say, “I love you.” If anything, this was even more awkward than the backrub.

REGULATED WORSHIP

The regulative principle addresses what the church may do when it assembles. Churches are not free to do whatever they want to do, they must do what Scripture instructs and requires them to do. When the church gathers to worship, its worship is to be “according to Scripture.”

Reformed Protestants traditionally have argued that Scripture requires a limited number of elements: reading Scripture, preaching, prayer, sung praise, the administration of the sacraments, and oaths (e.g. WCF, XXI, XXII). However, they allowed considerable freedom respecting the form a given element might take (e.g. written vs. extemporaneous prayers) and the circumstances within which the service takes place (time of service, seating arrangement, means of voice projections, lighting, etc., WCF I.6).

“He then directed us to turn to the persons on either side of us, look into their eyes, and say, “I love you.” If anything, this was even more awkward than the backrub.”

Historically a well-regulated service meant that Reformed Protestants knew pretty well what would happen in church each week. There would be few surprises. No one would be asked to do anything strange. Those leading the services wouldn’t do anything embarrassing. The Word would be read, preached, sung, prayed, and the sacraments would be administered. No dog and pony shows. No pyrotechnics. No one rambling about. The service consisted of the serious application of the Word of God.

This was good, because members are required to be at services. Attendance is a duty of membership. Since members have to attend, they should only be required to do what God requires them to do.

CHURCH POWER & MEMBERSHIP

In order to understand why the regulative principle limits what Christians can do when they gather, we need to consider the nature of Christian freedom. Specifically, Christians should be free from the arbitrary exercise of church power.

What can a church require of its members? Only what Scripture requires.

By the way, “members” is the correct word. Let me digress. The church, like Israel before it, was understood by the Reformed as a covenant community, that is, a community in covenant with God and with each other, and having concrete, real existence. The church was understood to be an institution having a form of government, officers, membership, a method of discipline, doctrine, and sacraments. It was this church that was required by its Lord to assemble on the Lord’s Day.

Since Christ established the church, participation and attendance are obligatory. Unlike a lecture, a small-group meeting, or a mid-week Bible study, all of which might be regarded as optional, Sunday services are not. One might opt-out of a conventicle or discipleship group because they may feature practices which cause a person discomfort. But this is not the case with the Lord’s Day assembly, under the direction of the officers of the church, for the purpose of worship.

This, it seems to me, has been the historic Reformed understanding of the church, its membership, and its power, and it’s as true today as ever. The church may only demand of its members what Scripture demands.

CHURCH POWER & WORSHIP PRACTICES

Since members in a sense have to be present, the church may not require the assembled members to do anything not authorized by Scripture. Nothing novel may be imposed upon them. The church’s power is limited. It may not command what Scripture does not command.

“Since church members are a “captive audience,” church officials may require them to do only that which Scripture requires that they do.”

For instance, it may not require that worshipers bow to the east, genuflect, cross themselves, or wear ashes on their foreheads. It may not require ministers to wear vestments, surplices, cassocks, stoles, and other garments that imply a priestly clergy. It may not subject congregations to incense, extra-biblical readings, exorcisms, anointings, ceremonies, rituals, or anything not authorized by Scripture. Not back massages. Not “I love you” rituals.

Since church members are a “captive audience,” church officials may require them to do only that which Scripture requires that they do.

Thus not only are the consciences of believers free from the imposition of humanly devised ordinances, but the sensibilities of believers are free from the bad taste of well-intending and foolish church officials. The regulative principle, properly applied, means that church members are free from the threats of idolatry and weirdness, heresy and tomfoolery.

CHURCH POWER BEYOND WORSHIP

Since this understanding of church power is integral to the regulative principle, there are broader applications that take us beyond attendance and the elements of a service.

Financially supporting a church is biblically obligatory (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:14; 16:1-2). That means a church, in turn, should take care to limit its expenditures to that which is authorized by Scripture. In other words, it should not, through its power to collect money, compel its members to participate in causes that are not warranted by Scripture. One may think of mainline Protestants’ penchant to throw money at left-ring political causes, or evangelical Protestants’ past enthusiasm for the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition. How individual Christians decide to spend their own money to support their political convictions is one thing. How a church decides to spend its members’ money through the budget is quite another.

The church calendar might be another area where the regulative principle is relevant. As I understand it, the fourth commandment obligates church members to attend morning and evening services. However, may it obligate members to participate in midweek activities? Should we discipline a member opts out of the youth group, or the mid-week prayer meeting, or the Ascension Day service? I don’t believe so. These sorts of activities may be good and well-intended; officers may advise the membership of the church that these extra-curriculars are edifying and beneficial; but they cannot be considered obligatory in the way that the Sunday services are.

Finally, the regulative principle serves the unity of the church. Why did the “worship wars” hit so many churches over the last few decades? In no small part, these battles were the result of unbiblical innovations. Long-time church members walked into the church building one Sunday morning and there it was: the praise band, the light show, the “worship leader,” the video clip, the big screen, the drama team, the dance routine, the fog machine. The older members resisted, then left. The church divided. Why? There was no regulative principle to protect the congregation from the purveyors of novelty.

CONCLUSION

Just as the regulative principle simplifies the worship of the church, its companion doctrine of church power simplifies the life of the church. Recognizing that Jesus has authorized the church to do some things and not others helps to shift our focus away from endless “can’t miss” retreats and conferences and seminars; away from countless mid-week Bible studies, prayer groups, accountability groups, discipleship groups, and support groups; and back to the ordinary means of grace exercised in the ordinary services of the church on the Lord’s Day. It frees believers to stay home, love their spouses, rear their children, and serve their neighbors.

The regulative principle is the great emancipator of the Christian life: from humanly devised ceremonies, however ancient; from bizarre novelties, however modern; and from hyper-active church calendars, however well-meaning.

Pity that so many have seen it as limiting. In fact, it liberates.

About the author:

Terry Johnson is the senior minster of Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Georgia.

By Matt Schmucker

Cleaning up the Rolls

Though I hear stories from church leaders around the country almost every day, I was still stunned by the following email from a faithful deacon in a Baptist church:

“I would appreciate the opportunity to talk with you regarding cleaning up the church roll. I began compiling a list of widows from our membership database yesterday and found that of the 141 total widows in our database, 38 were deceased and 4 had transferred membership to other churches (not counting the ones who are classified as “Inactive” or “Non-Resident Members).”

You can just imagine how the late-night talk show hosts would poke fun at this: “Did you hear about the thirty-eight dead members of Faith Alive Baptist Church? Talk about the need to change the church’s name!” This might be funny if it did not characterize churches around our nation and others.

Bad records and outdated rolls trouble any faithful pastor’s existence. Yet before you sweep things clean, consider both why and how this should be done.

“You can just imagine how the late-night talk show hosts would poke fun at this: “Did you hear about the thirty-eight dead members of Faith Alive Baptist Church? Talk about the need to change the church’s name!” This might be funny if it did not characterize churches around our nation and others.Why should churches clean up their membership roles?”

1. Christ’s name and honor is at stake in the world. Think about the Apostle Paul’s passionate concern for who was associated with the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5).

2. Membership in a church should reflect, as best as possible, membership in Christ’s Kingdom. We should neither receive nor dismiss members lightly. “Dropping someone from the rolls” should be treated with utmost care, even if the member himself has been careless.

3. Pastors, elders, and leaders will “give an account” to God someday for their shepherding (Heb. 13:17). God took Israel’s shepherds to task for repeated unfaithfulness (e.g. Ezek. 34).

4. Congregations will also give an account to God for how they receive members. Consider who Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 5!

5. Less mature Christians are at risk of being confused about the importance of the church in the growing Christian’s life and could be led toward complacency themselves.

6. The member who has moved out of the area should be encouraged to link arms with a church in his new hometown and make himself known to believers there. If he does not, his former church should encourage him to do so by letter or phone. If he remains unresponsive, the church should inform him that they will remove his name in the next members’ meeting, thereby sending the message that they can no longer account for his life.

How should churches clean up their membership roles?

If you tackle all the problematic membership cases at once, you will run into fire. But it’s difficult to predict where. Will your members be happy to remove local non-attenders? Out-of-the-area members? The dead? Pastor, be wise and only do what your people can tolerate. Be patient and teach until they are ready to move.

So where do you start? Picture multiple concentric circles (like a dartboard) with the center (the bull’s-eye) representing meaningful membership. The outer rings represent meaningless membership, and hopefully they are easiest to clean up. As you move from the outer rings to the bull’s-eye, your membership rolls should increasingly consist of confessing believers who are actively involved in your church. Let’s start from the outside and work in:

1. Members who are dead. (At my church we found 10!) This outer-most ring should be the easiest to clean up. At you church’s next meeting for conducting business, put these names before the congregation with a motion to remove them from membership in the following meeting. Don’t ask the congregation to immediately remove these names, but give them time to think about the motion.

2. Members whom you cannot find. Probably the next easiest group to remove. Two women in our church hunted for seventy members for six months in vain! These names were then put before the congregation asking for help. When all efforts were exhausted, a motion was put to the congregation to remove them.

“Once again, out of love for your people, do not clean the roles more quickly than your congregation can handle. For some, this may take years to work through the different rings.”

3. Absent and disinterested members. Our church had dozens of members who we found but who wanted nothing to do with us. We found one woman in Germany who had become a Unitarian and was upset that we contacted her.

4. Members out of the area. These are people who are unable to attend on a regular basis due to distance, and any meaningful accountability is near-impossible. You will no doubt encounter people who have a wrong understanding of membership in this group: “I’ve held my membership in that church since I sang in the Junior Choir in 1959” or “I walked the aisle in that church in 1970, and I promised my mother I would remain a faithful member.” Despite their emotional attachment to your church, this group needs to be taught a right understanding of church membership. Remember pastor, you will give an account for these individuals. Don’t be caught with names on your rolls of people whom you have never met. Make a motion to remove these individuals “for non-attendance” at your next business meeting.

5. Non-attending members in the area. Certainly we’ve reached one of the toughest circles. These people want to maintain their membership and they can attend; but they want little to do with the church. This circle is often difficult because of the relationships these individuals maintain with attending members. Maybe it’s a grown child or an old friend from the choir. Again, teaching is required and movement must be slow.

These first five categories are the biggest and most obvious targets. There are other categories like “attends, but won’t sign the statement of faith” or “in the area, but cannot attend.” Old age or an infirmity might prevent a member from attending; they should not be dismissed, but specially cared for! Also, we encourage special charity toward elderly members who have moved out of the area and into retirement homes. Why? They often grew up with a different understanding of church membership and are unlikely to change. Out of love, consider allowing them to remain on the rolls.

Once again, out of love for your people, do not clean the roles more quickly than your congregation can handle. For some, this may take years to work through the different rings. Churches are too often divided over careless pastoral exercises when the goal should be unity. Remember, each listing on your roll is more than a name; it’s a soul.

About the author:

Matt Schmucker, executive director of 9Marks, is an elder at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC.

Resources on Church Membership

If you’re looking for some more practical resources on church membership, here are a few suggestions.

First, check out our “Answers for Pastors” on membership. Here you’ll find quick answers to questions such as:

• Is church membership biblical?

• Where do we see church membership in the New Testament?

• According to Scripture, why should every Christian join a church?

• What is “meaningful membership”?

• How can I lead my church toward meaningful membership?

• What should be required of someone in order to join a church?

• Is church membership wrongly exclusive?

• Must someone be a church member before being allowed to serve?

If you’re thinking through your church’s membership process, check out Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s Membership Matters class. You’re welcome to use and adapt this material for free.

If you want to dig deeper into the theological foundations of membership, check out Jonathan Leeman’s book The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love (Crossway, 2010). Also keep an eye out for a new, shorter book from 9Marks on membership in early 2012.

And here are some audio resources that address church membership:

• The Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Church Membership with Jonathan Leeman

• Membership and Congregationalism with Mark Dever

• The Meaning of Membership with Mark Dever

By Owen Strachan

A Review Essay: The Next Christians

Gabe Lyons, The Next Christians: The Good News About the End of Christian America. Doubleday, 2010. 240 pages. $19.99

Gabe Lyons’s The Next Christians is a bold, fresh piece of evangelical strategy. Lyons is a well-known Christian cultural guru, the creator of the Fermi Project. He’s made the letter Q cool—an impressive accomplishment—through Q Ideas, a kind of TED conference for the post-emergent crowd which looks to Scot McKnight, N. T. Wright, Brian McLaren and others for its theological freight.[1] Those who know Gabe, as I do, consider him to be a gracious, reflective, and forward-thinking man who desires to be faithful to Christ and his call.

The Next Christians, published with a major secular press, is intended to make a major impact. It comes highly commended, even in the exclamation point-happy world of book blurbs. Margaret Feinberg labels it “The best book you’ll read this year.” Scot McKnight testifies that “If I had to pick one leader for the next generation of Christians, it would be Gabe Lyons.”

This 230 page book is jam-packed with critical reflection on modern Christianity. I know Gabe to be a humble man, though his text is ambitious and freighted with concern for American evangelicalism in our day. Two major ideas thread their way through the text. First, “Christian America” is dead. He learned this by visiting Europe and Montreat, North Carolina:

My trip to Europe and Montreat seemed to represent the two ends of our current situation. In Montreat, I met with an icon from Christianity’s past who recognizes how the faith is presently shifting. In Europe, I seemingly caught a glimpse of America’s more secular future. Positioned between these poles was the empirical research we had commissioned and the hundreds of conversations with a new generation of Christian leaders. Each situation echoed the sentiment that many Christians have lost confidence in their faith. Our movement, as a whole, was quickly declining in the West.[2]

The second major idea is that there is another, better way for Christians to choose in this confusing situation. Lyons suggests a focus on “restoration” for those concerned by the “post-Christian” state of America:

After observing cultural trends, collecting data, and having hundreds of conversations with Christian leaders, I see a new way forward. There is a whole movement of Christians—evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Orthodox, Pentecostals, and others—asking these same questions and offering meaningful answers [to what it means to be Christian today]. They want to be a force for restoration in a broken world even as we proclaim the Christian Gospel. They want the label Christian to mean something good, intelligent, authentic, true, and beautiful.[3]

This language of seeing “a new way forward” based on a drive to restore and renew reappears throughout the book. “As we confront the possibilities that tomorrow may hold,” our author says, “I invite you to not only study the facts. I urge you to reenvision your faith.”[4] According to Lyons, the consequences of failing to heed the restorative call are grave: “I believe this moment is unlike any other time in history. Its uniqueness demands an original response. If we fail to offer a different way forward, we risk losing entire generations to apathy and cynicism.”[5]

While I will register disagreements with Lyons in what follows, I commend his attempt to be faithful and creative in working toward this end. Past evangelicals have not always steered clear of a nominal Christianity, and it is true that poorly preached Christianity yields anemic faith. As one can see, Lyons wishes to help the church find its footing in a confusing age. He wants to be a part of the solution, and toward that end he offers The Next Christians. We now proceed to ask several high-level questions of the text’s content. As we’ll see, there is room for agreement and disagreement in the answers Lyons provides to these questions.

QUESTION ONE: IS THE “RESTORATIONIST” GOSPEL THE BIBLICAL GOSPEL?

Lyons suggests, in the first place, that the traditional formulation of the biblical gospel is “truncated.” He takes on the traditional formulation of the gospel with vigor:

By truncating the full narrative, it reduces the power of God’s redeeming work on the cross to just a proverbial ticket to a good afterlife. Is this all there is to Christianity? Did Jesus die only so we could get out of this place and go somewhere else?

While the redemptive Christ event is the apex of the story, it isn’t the whole story. The story begins in the context of a perfect garden and continues through God’s promise of restoration. We can’t cut the branch of redemption off the tree of God’s story and whittle it to fit our purposes. Creation and restoration are the bookends to Christ’s earthly work and they are shaping how the next Christians holistically participate in the world.[6]

Pair this with another strong statement arguing that the gospel is ultimately about restoration: “The restorative work of Jesus as displayed through the Gospel is the main thing—indeed, the one and only and true first thing.”[7]

It is entirely possible for Christians to “reduce” the gospel, to make it a badge card for union with Christ. Surely, some churches have made this mistake. The nominalism that appears in seemingly every religious poll run on the American populace suggests just this kind of conclusion. Poor teaching that takes little account of the thousand transformative effects of the gospel will yield people who have little interest in transformation. Research—academic and lay-level—bears this out.

While in some circles conversion and the Christian life are cheapened by a “get out of jail free” gospel, though, I wonder if Lyons isn’t reframing the gospel in his work, making it more about restoration and less about salvation. This review is not the place to clarify at length a biblical definition of the gospel and therefore the church’s mission; personally, I am thankful that Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert are attempting just that in their forthcoming book What Is the Mission of the Church? (Crossway, 2011). For our purposes, we can suggest that the restoration and renewal of all things is a glorious biblical truth. However, it is the salvation of sinners that occupies the center of this restoring work, not the other way around. It is not the renewed creation, after all, that is the point of God’s redeeming work; it is the fact that his blood-bought people will live and rule with him in a “world of love.”[8] What Lyons calls the “truncated gospel” is the gospel the scriptural authors proclaim.[9] The gospel is a simple message. It has expansive and explosive implications, but it is simple and salvifically oriented at its core.

“All that we do as citizens of God’s kingdom points to the transformative spiritual restoration carried out by the covenant Lord in order that a mass of perdition might become a multitude of praise.”

Lyons is onto something, I think, because believers who recognize the conversionist nature of the gospel do not need to struggle to see that the gospel frees them for service. It is joyfully true that “atonement brings shalom” as Graham Cole has argued in his recent book God the Peacemaker.[10] But this is different from arguing that the gospel is about cultural restoration.

If we could push this discussion a bit further to a related quandary, there is not one category in the life of faith for gospel and another for kingdom. We don’t have a “gospel team” that preaches and a “kingdom team” that does mercy ministry. The biblical gospel is “the gospel of the kingdom of God” (Mark 1:14).[11] All that we do as citizens of God’s kingdom points to the transformative spiritual restoration carried out by the covenant Lord in order that a mass of perdition might become a multitude of praise. To fix a decaying neighborhood, to tutor underprivileged students, to show kindness to disabled people, and to make soul-stirring art—all these can and very definitely do give glory to God when done with a doxological heart. But these realities do not point to an abstract work of restoration. Rather, they testify to the power of the cross, the death and resurrection of Christ, which clears the guilty and enfranchises them to serve as bearers of the word of salvation in a thousand different spheres.

QUESTION TWO: IS THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TO RESTORE?

Flowing from the first critique about the nature of the gospel is a second: Lyons suggests that the mission of people gripped by the “restoring” gospel is, well, to restore. Though he does not engage deeply with Scripture on this point, Lyons cites Colossians 1 to make the case that the gospel is about more than merely saving one’s soul:

Two thousand years after the Christ event, people are still on earth and the hope is not diminished. Paul tells us in Colossians 1, that Christ’s shed blood began a restorative work affecting the eternal things of heaven as well as the here and now events on earth. More than simply offering us a postmortem destination, God commissioned us to share his whole story and become conduits for him to bring healing to earth and its residents. Like a capstone to the story of God, Christians are called to partner in a restorative work so that the torch of hope is carried until Christ returns.

He concludes the point portentously: “This is the story of God. The whole story.”[12]

Lyons is surely right that the work of Christ has implications for all of life and for all of creation. However, his contention is worth probing a bit. Nowhere in Colossians 1 does Paul explicitly state that believers are to “bring healing” to the world.[13] The point of Colossians 1 is what Christ has done. The closest it comes to discussing what we must do are Paul’s words about “proclaiming” the mystery of what Christ has done (Col. 1:28).[14]

Now, Paul says that one of the goals of his proclamation is to present believers “mature in Christ,” which, no doubt, might include the types of things Lyons is after. Still, the text simply doesn’t say that, because it’s not about that. It’s about Christ’s work. If Lyons still wants to insist that Paul means to imply all this, then he should take us to the text which says so.

The danger here is assuming that Christians are responsible to do everything which Christ himself has accomplished and will accomplish. First, we are not responsible to do everything he is responsible to do, such as die for sins or render judgment on the nations. Second, we are not responsible to do what will only be accomplished at the end of history, such as restoring the Edenic balance to nature when the wolf will lie down with the lamb (Isa. 11:6). The mistake of equating Christ’s work with ours might seem harmless when someone is calling us to recycle, but it’s hardly harmless when we begin to envision Christ as conqueror. Weren’t the Crusades justified at least in part by deducing a Christian’s conquering work from Christ’s promise to conquer? No, I’m not saying Lyons is responsible for the Crusades. I am saying that we need to be very careful about drawing implications about the church’s mission out of texts that are about Christ’s work. Lyons is rightly trying to understand the stratospheric nature of Christ’s redemption, but we need as much exegetical and theological care on this point as we do on other scriptural themes.

QUESTION THREE: WERE CHRIST AND PAUL RESTORERS?

Jesus and Paul had multifaceted ministries. Lyons recognizes that, and so do I. But I do wonder if he reframes the ministry of Jesus and Paul to fit his restoration paradigm. He describes Jesus, for example, in terms of being loving and healing:

Sinners loved Jesus. They literally followed Jesus everywhere. They pursued him from town to town. He spent days with them, meeting their friends, eating meals in their homes, accepting their gifts, and embracing their children. They were suspended in disbelief at encounters with someone who understood truth and beauty, healing and restoration, righteousness, justice, mercy, and grace—and He genuinely loved them.[15]

The judgment aspect of the ministry of Christ is explicitly set aside:

[Restorers] work with people of different faiths to relieve social injustice in their communities. They are driven by the belief that Jesus himself was more concerned with engagement than condemnation. As John writes, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (Jn. 3:17).[16]

It is of course true that Jesus healed the sick, ministered to the marginalized, and brought beauty to an often ugly world. What glorious truths these are! But he wasn’t merely the Great Restorer. The accent of his ministry was surely one of mercy and love. However, there is also a strong note of judgment, condemnation and warning in Christ’s teaching. Jesus came not just to restore but to tear down. The “already-not yet” theme in view here applies not only to salvation but also to judgment. Consider the words of Matthew 23:32-35:

Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

One has to balance the testimony of Christ carefully, but the judgment aspect of his first coming is present throughout the Gospels. Luke 12:51 reads “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.” Even as we recognize that Jesus is the one who said in John 3:36 that “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life,” we know that he followed that with this: “whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

The same is true of Paul, whom Lyons reads as an engager:

Apart from Jesus, a better example hardly exists for the restoration-minded Christian than Paul’s. Not only did he show up and engage—he showed compassion and grace to anyone who would listen. It appears his desire for people to be restored to Christ overcame any urges to be offended by their sin.[17]

Both Jesus and Paul surely reached out to sinners with compassion. Paul is a model for us in our interactions with lost people. But Lyons’s effort to compel Christians to be “provoked, not offended,” and to ground this call in the example of these men needs a bit of filling out. Paul was certainly offended by Peter’s separation from supposedly “unclean” Gentiles (Gal. 2:11-13); he was offended by the sin of homosexuality and denounced it at length (Rom. 1); and more than being offended, he was deeply angered by sexual immorality in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 6). Paul had great concern for holiness and so must we. Our first task as Christians is to present ourselves holy to the Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:16). We will do well in some cases to avoid projecting an external sense of being offended by the sins of the lost, as such is the natural outworking of our depraved natures, and so Lyons has a point here. His understanding of Jesus and Paul, however, needs more substantive biblical engagement.

QUESTION FOUR: IS EVANGELISM BORING?

In line with the foregoing, I wonder if Lyons’s conception of evangelism needs a bit of reworking as well. Consider the following passage, in which he makes the case that removing “restoration” from the gospel cuts the meaning out of Christianity for many:

The next Christians claim that the beginning (God’s goodness throughout creation) and the ending (the restoration of all things) of the greater story have been conveniently cut out, leaving modern-day Christians with an incoherent understanding of the Gospel. Many are bound to a Gospel story with a climax that feels actually quite boring. “Go tell others how to escape from Planet Earth” doesn’t feel like a compelling mission to them. Sure, they want to help others come to know the way of Jesus, but they believe their story should affect real lives and situations now. Not just in the afterlife.[18]

In the same vein, he writes at length:

Consider the discouragement for Christians when restoration—the “last hundred pages”—is removed from God’s story. According to this version, the only meaningful role a believer can play is evangelism, either through doing it or supporting it. But this version of the Gospel runs the risk of leaving some Christians in the pew feeling disconnected. More important, it leaves many with no clear way to understand the restoration mandates throughout the New Testament. We all agree that evangelism is an important part of the life of the believer, but a truncated Gospel doesn’t seem to fully utilize some appendages in the body of Christ.

Is evangelism really the only use for the millions of churchgoers in our culture?

Now, put restoration back into the story. Instantly, you’ve created millions of jobs for all the “unemployed” and bored Christians in the church—jobs they can get excited about. Now there is work to do for people who want to make the world a better place in the meantime. Instead of simply waiting for God to unveil the new heaven and the new earth, the rest of us can give the world a taste of what God’s kingdom is all about—building up, repairing brokenness, showing mercy, reinstating hope, and generally adding value. In this expanded model, everyone plays an essential role. In this way, relearning becomes exciting and personal.[19]

I appreciate an attempt to infuse daily Christian living with purpose. Many of us could use such a shot in the arm. Furthermore, I do think that Lyons is right to some extent: churches can make it seem like the only meaningful Christian activity is evangelism. That, to be frank, is not true.

But I do have some small quibbles with Lyons’s language on this point. Can we really sum up the work of the church as recorded in the book of Acts with the tagline “Go tell others how to escape planet earth?” Were the apostles “bored” by sharing the gospel with people otherwise doomed to judgment? After Jesus ascended to heaven, did they loll about, drinking iced tea, eating crab cakes, and growing discouraged over the lack of things to do? Did they find the gospel boring, lounging in Jerusalem like some preteens outside of Hot Topic?

The Scripture says that the apostles “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6) in their tireless effort to share the good news that the sin of man had met its match in the blood of Christ. In the apostolic age, when the gospel was loosed in order to fulfill the Great Commission, “awe came upon every soul” (Acts 2:43) and the people of God were “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name” (Acts 5:41). This is but the smallest sampling of the sense of delight and privilege the early Christians felt in carrying out their evangelistic charge (from Matt. 28:16-20). Those who understood the gospel and its significance were electrified by it, catalyzed to risk their lives for it, and mobilized to follow their Lord into death if the spread of the gospel required it.

The passionate evangelism of the apostles and other disciples was driven by a clarion understanding of the wrath of God and the prospect of eternal torment in hell for every unrepentant sinner. This reality is not boring or vocationally deadening. In some circles, though, it is fast becoming as passé today as it was with liberal Christians of past generations. We shouldn’t think that evangelism is the only thing we can do to glorify God—we glorify him by changing diapers, in Martin Luther’s famous phrase. We also shouldn’t think that evangelism is boring. It certainly is not, and neither are its effects.

QUESTION FIVE: ARE CHRISTIANS JUST NOW DISCOVERING CULTURAL ENGAGEMENT?

The Next Christians has many creative ideas and is compellingly woven together. Because Lyons paints with a broad brush, though, I wonder if at times he offers a slightly skewed understanding of evangelical history. It is his contention, for example, that present-day Christians have made a fresh discovery of extra-evangelistic involvement in the world:

Common ground thinking is revolutionizing activities among present-day Christians. Entire churches finally feel free to serve their communities and the world using all their talents. Churches are beginning to feel the power of seeing all their congregants come alive, from doctors co-opting to create clinics for the poor in urban centers to stay-at-home moms starting afterschool tutoring programs for at-risk children. They’d bought in to the modern idea that the only good Christian activity was to convert others or give their money and time to those who could. Today they are discovering that their talent and creativity matter. The longing they have felt to do good in the world—even if it wasn’t explicitly connected to getting people saved—have been validated. And they are thrilled to give their time, energy, money, and life to creating and cultivating culture in a way that allows God’s love to break through on earth today.[20]

There is surely at least a kernel of truth here. I’m sure that we could dig through the past and find examples of Christians who held to a deficient view of calling. It does seem, though, that there are a good number of historic examples of Christians who desired “to do good” in the their culture and society as an outworking of their faith. Timothy George has said of the followers of John Calvin that “Like the Franciscans and the Dominicans in the Middle Ages, Calvin’s followers forsook the religious ideal of stabilitas for an aggressive mobilitas. They poured into the cities, universities, and market squares of Europe as publishers, educators, entrepreneurs, and evangelists.”[21] Evangelicals have long been on the bleeding (not the leading) edge of philanthropy, cultural engagement and entrepeneurship. George Whitefield drew much of his living from the wealthy Countess of Huntingdon. The Sunday School was founded in America by Samuel Slater, owner of textile mills. The Clapham Sect and its protagonist, William Wilberforce, were supported by numerous English philanthropists.[22] The Tappan brothers single-handedly funded a substantial portion of the evangelical abolitionist cause in the 19th century. Moody Bible Institute was founded by the largesse of Henry Parsons Crowell, the man who also gave us Quaker Oats. Evangelical history is littered with gospel-minded Christians who used their wealth for noble ends, just as the apostles were supported by rich Christians—a point in favor of managing wealth wisely, not despising it (or spiritualizing poverty, on the other hand).

Evangelicals have historically showed great generosity to the needy. Douglas Sweeney has spoken to the benevolence of Jonathan Edwards, pointing out that “Edwards never made a show of it, but he loved to help the poor.” In addition to speaking about it from the pulpit, Edwards, in the words of his pupil Samuel Hopkins, “practis’d it” in private to such an extent that Hopkins judged that “his Alms-deeds…if known, would prove him to be as great an Instance of Charity as any that can be produced in this Age.”[23] The theology of Edwards included a hugely influential and largely unknown idea called “disinterested benevolence” that helped spawn what historians call the “benevolent empire” of the nineteenth century in which countless Christians, imbued with a love for God and his gospel, gave their time and money to what were called “benevolent societies.” This movement, profiled by Martin Marty, was one of the biggest cultural phenomena of the nineteenth century.[24] The National Association of Evangelicals, formed in 1942 and helmed by Harold Ockenga, included a substantial social outreach component.[25] Even the much-maligned fundamentalists of the twentieth century devoted considerable time and attention to mercy ministry, as Joel Carpenter has shown.[26] This trend continues into the present and recent past. Jerry Falwell, whose death signaled for Lyons the “death” of “Christian America,” founded a thriving, wide-ranging, and virtually unpublicized ministry to unwed pregnant mothers called the Liberty Godparent Home, among other ventures.

I have listed a motley crew of examples, but the point seems worth pondering: the traditional gospel has not stifled philanthropy, creativity, and cultural involvement. In diverse places and times, Christians of a wide range of backgrounds, denominations and locations have sought, as an outworking of their gospel belief, to be “salt and light” in this fallen world (Matt. 5:13-16). Perhaps further engagement with the many highlights and heroes, however flawed, of the Christian past is warranted.

“I have listed a motley crew of examples, but the point seems worth pondering: the traditional gospel has not stifled philanthropy, creativity, and cultural involvement.”

STRENGTHS OF THE TEXT: AWARENESS, THOUGHTFULNESS, AND A FRESH DOCTRINE OF VOCATION

The Next Christians is a provocative book. Though I have registered serious concerns with it, I found aspects of the book helpful and insightful. I appreciated Lyons’s attempt to diagnose our modern situation and to offer hope in the midst of a confusing age. I also appreciated Lyons’s robust, take-dominion doctrine of vocation. There are certainly countless ways for believers and churches to meaningfully engage their communities, cities, towns, countries and world. Even if I would differentiate what we commonly call “social justice” or “cultural engagement” from the gospel itself, I would want to say that there are all kinds of ways in which Lyons and others are engaging a lost world that excite and challenge me.

Every Christian in every calling—whether the insurance salesman or stay-at-home mom or painter or government official or small business owner or gospel rapper—can and should work honestly, excellently, and to the Lord. It is good for Christians to penetrate every level of society and to be involved to the extent they can in politics, entertainment, mercy work, business, and journalism. It is a great thing to make beautiful, God-glorifying art. It would be terrific for more Christians to have a robust view of their work and calling, for film producers to plot about how to make movies that profoundly move the viewer, for Manhattan ad executives to bring their faith to bear on their work, for community members to stand up for the voiceless folks in their neighborhood.

Lyons and many others have a heart for just this kind of work, and I love that heart. However, as I have argued throughout this essay, I would urge exegetical and theological caution on this point. We need to avoid conflating our doctrine of salvation with our doctrine of vocation. All that Christians do to glorify their Lord is a part our Christian mission, yes; but not all that Christians do is the most important part of that mission.

Let us say, though, that Christians of differing perspectives on this issue can easily fall into a gospel vs. culture dichotomy in which we favor either proclamation or action to the exclusion of the other. Too often, we seem to end up on one team or the other. But those who rightly prioritize the mission of proclamation must not end up as enemies of all activities and vocations save biblical preaching. On the other hand, those who enjoy the necessary work of cultural engagement must not lose their sense of the importance of gospel proclamation.

CONCLUSION: WE HAVE A RIGHTEOUSNESS CRISIS ON OUR HANDS

I want to end by saying that Gabe Lyons has identified a problem of the evangelical past. It is all too easy to take the gospel lightly, to fall into a nominal Christianity, and to leave people with little to do but check their watch (or iPhone) in anticipation of coming deliverance. Lyons sees these problems, and I agree with him that they are problems. We agree, then, on the problem, and I’m thankful that he’s raising issues that must be discussed in order to avoid past pitfalls. He’s doing so, furthermore, as a creative strategist and a gifted writer.

We do disagree on certain parts of the solution, as I’ve shown. Much as Christians should strive for shrewd, creative engagement with our modern world, we must cling to the historic gospel. Lyons is right in pointing out certain canards and half-truths of the evangelical past (and present). But in some places, he offers us a half-solution. Most significantly, I think, he suggests that we broaden the gospel to encompass restorationist themes.

“While we come to Christ from diverse backgrounds and experiences, at some level every sinner must, like Luther, recognize this awful situation. The wrath of God is at our backs. It will consume us if we do not discover a perfect righteousness, alien to us, but freely offered in the cross of Christ.”

What we need in a postmodern age is the historic gospel, however ironic that may be. It is this message, guarded by centuries of Christians in diverse places and times in fulfillment of 2 Timothy 1, that is the answer for our cultural moment. We don’t need a reworked newness, but a freshly grasped oldness, a message of salvation with ancient bones and trans-cultural, trans-temporal significance.

While we need always to consider attempts to think freshly and creatively about the gospel, we must also remember that the euangelion is at its core a moral, spiritual and legal message. It does not come to us as a static proposition; rather, it announces to us that we have a crisis on our hands, a crisis of the worst kind, for God requires perfect righteousness and we have none. While we come to Christ from diverse backgrounds and experiences, at some level every sinner must, like Luther, recognize this awful situation. The wrath of God is at our backs. It will consume us if we do not discover a perfect righteousness, alien to us, but freely offered in the cross of Christ.

Jesus’ atoning death and triumphant resurrection sent shockwaves throughout the created order in a thousand glorious ways, reshaping the existing order from its very foundations and overturning myriad effects of the curse. We should work to understand and appreciate these benefits even as we remember that the work of Christ solves the central crisis before us, our righteousness crisis.[27] Like Luther, once driven to the brink of madness by his lack of holiness, we are freed as Russ Moore has shown to exult in the cross-work of Jesus and to scream the “Abba, father” cry of the adopted sinner.[28] The God-man has triumphed over sin and death and enabled His people to escape wrath and to receive the righteousness of Christ.

Though the world has changed and the church is challenged today, the need of the next Christians is that of past Christians: a fresh vision of the majestic Lord who has, through the work of Christ announced in his gospel, justified the ungodly.

About the author:

Owen Strachan is instructor of Christian theology at Boyce College in Louisville, Kentucky.

Reviewed by Bobby Jamieson

Book Review: The Gospel Commission

Michael Horton, The Gospel Commission: Recovering God’s Strategy for Making Disciples. Baker, 2011. 320 pages. $19.99

Are evangelicals being distracted by mission creep? That is, are we allowing lots of other good things to creep in and crowd out the central task Jesus sends the church into the world to do?

On the one hand, the rising groundswell of interest in social and cultural engagement among many evangelicals likely reflects the flowering of a robust biblical view of creation and the Bible’s command to love our neighbor. And many Christians are engaging these issues in a way that keeps the message of the gospel front and center in their lives and in the lives of local churches.

On the other hand, many voices insist that if the church as church is not engaging (insert favored social problem or cultural activity here), then it’s not fulfilling its mission. Such critics assert that evangelical churches are too preoccupied with “member maintenance” to pay attention to the real mission of Jesus among the poor, in the inner cities, and in the places where culture is made.

A whole lot of theological issues are wrapped up in this question: the definition of the gospel, the distinction between the church as a “gathered” institution and the church as a “scattered” organism, the nature of the inaugurated kingdom of God and its implications for the present age, and, not least, the contours and scope of the mission Jesus gives to his church.

“Horton argues that the church’s regular means of grace are at the very heart of Jesus’ missional mandate. Therefore, the church is a missionary institution by nature and calling.”

AN EXPANSIVE THEOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE GREAT COMMISSION

Driven by the concern that evangelicals are in fact being distracted by mission creep, Michael Horton has addressed these issues and more in his new book The Gospel Commission: Recovering God’s Strategy for Making Disciples. At its heart, this book is an expansive theological exposition of the “Great Commission” of Matthew 28:18-20. Along the way, in addition to the issues mentioned above, Horton engages with cultural pluralism, theological inclusivism, and a number of influential facets of evangelical piety and practice which he finds to be troublesome.

Horton’s thesis is summed up in one sentence early on: “The central point of this book is that there is no mission without the church and no church without the mission” (14). Over against those who would denigrate the church’s regular ministry of “Word and sacrament” as a hindrance to mission or as an irrelevant sideshow, Horton argues that the church’s regular means of grace are at the very heart of Jesus’ missional mandate. Therefore, the church is a missionary institution by nature and calling.

A RADICALLY CHURCH-SHAPED VISION FOR DISCIPLE-MAKING

In other words, Horton argues for a radically church-shaped vision for disciple-making. In my estimation, this is a timely, biblical corrective to evangelicals’ general neglect of the institutional church and to the particular way that recent “missional” emphases have sometimes tended to denigrate the institutional church’s ministry. This church-shaped vision comes to fruition in chapters six and seven, in which Horton unpacks how the church’s ministry of preaching, teaching, administering the sacraments, and practicing discipline fulfills Christ’s mandate to make disciples of all nations.

Further, Horton’s view of the church’s mission is grounded on a lush depiction of the Bible’s teaching on the kingdom of God. In chapter 2, “Exodus and Conquest: the Gospel and the Kingdom,” Horton expounds the gospel as the eschatological exodus and conquest which secures our salvation and brings the age to come crashing into the present, opening up a “crevice” between the ages in which the gospel is proclaimed to all nations.

Thus, this book contains Horton’s answer to current debates about the relationship between gospel and kingdom, and it’s a compelling one. Building upon careful exegetical and biblical-theological work, Horton argues that “Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom is identical to Paul’s proclamation of the gospel of justification” (75). Further, “The kingdom of God in this present phase is primarily audible, not visible. We hear the opening and shutting of the kingdom’s gates through the proclamation of the gospel, in the sacraments, and in discipline” (67). In the same vein, “Only if we hold in slight esteem the forgiveness of sins, rebirth into the new creation, justification, sanctification, and the communion of saints can we fail to revel in these present realities of Christ’s reign” (68).

Horton’s thesis that “the kingdom is the gospel and the gospel is the kingdom” (79) displays the many facets of the gospel in all their gleaming, soul-stirring radiance. Further, Horton offers a robustly biblical account of the kingdom of God that precisely details those aspects of the kingdom which are inaugurated in the present age and those which await the last day for their realization. With these theological convictions at its core, Horton’s blueprint for the church’s mission preserves the primacy of the proclamation of the gospel and the church’s mandate to make disciples.

Building on this work, in chapter eight Horton has a clarifying and, I would argue, largely satisfying discussion of the relationship between “the Great Commission and the Great Commandment”—that is, the relationship between evangelism and social justice. Horton proposes that the way to fulfill both mandates is for the church as an institution to devote itself to proclaiming the gospel and making disciples, which equips individual Christians to fulfill both commissions in their “myriad callings in the world” (231). Then, in chapter nine, Horton addresses the touchy issue of mission creep, analyzing several “dichotomies that distort the Great Commission and distract us from the strategies that Christ gave us” (252 ff.). Similar to his Westminster West colleague David VanDrunen’s work in his recent book Living in God’s Two Kingdoms (Crossway, 2010), Horton carefully argues for the unique, biblically circumscribed role of the local church as an institution. This is a crucial theological guardrail for preserving the church’s faithfulness to our Master’s marching orders.

A VALUABLE, SUBSTANTIVE, AND CLARIFYING CONTRIBUTION

I’ve spent most of my time letting Horton do the talking because I think that this book makes a valuable, substantive, and clarifying contribution to the current evangelical discussion about mission, and I want his arguments to be heard.

“He muscles out room for the church as institution and then points out that this is how we must fulfill the Great Commission because this—the local church—is the means Jesus established for carrying out his mission on earth.”

Horton’s theological work on gospel and kingdom is clarifying and pointedly edifying. Moreover, he glories in the inauguration of the kingdom of God and the hope of the restoration of all things while carefully guarding against an over-realized eschatology. Further, his massive emphasis on the centrality of the institutional church in fulfilling the Great Commission is a much-needed rallying cry. He muscles out room for the church as institution and then points out that this is how we must fulfill the Great Commission because this—the local church—is the means Jesus established for carrying out his mission on earth. And Horton carefully deprograms several common misconceptions that keep evangelicals from rightly understanding and carrying out the Great Commission. Among these are a consumeristic understanding of contextualization (114-132), the idea that we “live the gospel” (266-285), the claim that the institutional dimensions of the church are inimical to mission (285-290), and a misconstrual of the relationship between the church and the kingdom (290-293).

I have to register a few representative disagreements for the sake of conscience, but these by no means vitiate the book’s value. At times, Horton’s claims about what is representatively “evangelical” strike me as somewhat tendentious. I was not persuaded by his polemic for infant baptism. I don’t think he gets the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day quite right. And I’d raise questions about some of his language about the sacraments.

But in all of this, I appreciate that Horton is fleshing out a biblical vision for mission in the muscles and ligaments of the institutional church. Horton is dead right that the local church is at the heart of the Great Commission, and that the Great Commission provides us with “the message, mandate, and methods that Christ has ordained for his continuing mission in the world” (20). I hope that Horton’s example of fleshing out this churchly vision for mission within his own convictional and confessional framework will inspire many evangelicals to do the same.

This book is theologically rich, carefully critical, and it throbs with a missionary heartbeat. Reading it will both instruct and inspire you to go and make disciples of all nations.

About the author:

Bobby Jamieson is assistant editor for 9Marks.

Reviewed by Kevin DeYoung

Book Review: Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission

Robert L. Plummer, Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission. Paternoster, 2006. 190 pages. $25.00

If there is one thing we all know that God expects of us as Christians, it’s that we ought to share the gospel with those who don’t know Christ. Evangelical Christians are evangelistic. It’s maybe the only thing self-proclaimed evangelicals agree on: God wants us to tell others about Jesus.

Yet think for a moment. Can you give me a text that commands Christians to evangelize the lost? Okay, you got Matthew 28:18-20, but keep your Bible closed and see if you can come up with another. The promise to Abraham to bless the whole world through him doesn’t count. Neither do the worship scenes in Revelation 5 and 7. I want verses that do more than show God’s heart for the nations or his promise to make the nations glad in God. I want texts which show that God’s people should be pursuing the nations with the good news of the gospel.

Keep thinking.

Keep thinking.

It’s not as easy as it sounds to come up with texts on evangelism. I should clarify. It’s very easy to come up with texts that show Paul (or one of the apostles) as an evangelist, but not as simple to demonstrate that Paul expected the early Christian communities to evangelize. That’s why Plummer’s book Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission is such an important book.

THE BIG IDEA

Paul’s Understanding is Robert Plummer’s revised Ph.D. dissertation. It is a dense, much footnoted book, just what you would expect from the dissertation of an assistant professor of New Testament interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Thankfully, the book’s thesis is stated clearly.

In the end, this book seeks to show that Paul envisioned himself as an apostle who conveyed the dynamic gospel to his hearers, so that the same effective, self-diffusing word that characterized Paul’s apostolic mission also characterized the congregations he began. As extensions of the apostles’ ministry, the churches are agents of God’s word, which continues to work in and spread through them (e.g., Col. 1:5-6; 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 1:8; 2:13-16; 2 Thess. 3:1). By its very nature, the “apostolic church” must be missionary. (2)

In short, Paul evangelized and expected the churches he planted to do the same.

AN OVERVIEW

In Chapter 1 Plummer surveys the scholarly field, placing various authors into one of four categories: 1) pre-1950 continuity, 2) pre-1950 discontinuity, 3) 1950-present discontinuity, 4) 1950-present continuity. Continuity in this scheme means the scholars argue or assume that Paul expected his churches to evangelize; discontinuity means that the apostle did not expect the early Christian communities to evangelize as he did.

In the earlier period of continuity we find scholars like Roland Allen and Adolf von Harnack. Pre-1950 discontinuity scholars include Ernest Renan and William Wrede.

W.P. Bowers, David Bosch, and John Dickson (an Australian apologist who has written a number of popular, lay-level books on mission related themes) are among the later scholars who argue that Paul did not expect local congregations to evangelize.

In the last category (more recent arguments for continuity), Plummer examines several familiar names, including Peter T. O’Brien, I. Howard Marshall, Eckhard J. Schnabel, and G.K. Beale.

Plummer’s conclusion from the scholarly field is that there is no consensus, so we must give careful attention to the biblical text.

In Chapter 2 Plummer argues that Paul’s gospel was a “dynamic entity that propelled him (as an apostle) and the churches (as gospel-created and gospel-empowered entities) into the further spread of God’s word” (67). In other words, it is the nature of the gospel as a powerful force to go forth in mission. Plummer sees evidence of this dynamic gospel in texts like 1 Corinthians 14:36, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 2 Timothy 2:8-9, and Colossians 1:5-7.

More to the point, Plummer shows how the word of God, once received, then advances through those who received it. This was especially evident in the Thessalonian church where the word was at work in the believers (1 Thess. 2:13-16), the word was running ahead (2 Thess. 3:1), and the word was ringing and sounding forth (1 Thess. 1:8). Plummer makes a convincing case that this language indicates evangelistic activity.

Chapter 3 is the most helpful section. Here Plummer examines specific, largely overlooked texts in which Paul tells his churches to proclaim the gospel.

• Philippians 1:12-18 suggests that Paul anticipated Christ being “proclaimed in every way” by the church in Philippi.

• The shoes (part of the armor of God) in Ephesians 6:15 should make the believers “ready to proclaim the gospel of peace” (NRSV).

• 1 Corinthians 4:16 exhorts the early church to imitate Paul’s openness to suffer as a result of proclaiming the foolishness of the cross.

• Similarly, 1 Corinthians 11:1 calls Christians to imitate the Apostle in his salvific concern for outsiders.

• We also see evidence that the Corinthians were to be concerned for the salvation of nonbelievers in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 and 14:23-25.

Besides these examples of “actively” sharing the gospel, several texts show how the early churches were to “passively” bear witness to Christ. Texts such as 2 Corinthians 6:3-7, 1 Thessalonians 2:5-12, and Titus 2:1-10 demonstrate that “all the various segments of the Christian community are to live praiseworthy lives—not simply for the sake of obeying God, but also because their behavior will commend or detract from the gospel” (104-5).

“Most crucially, by examining dozens of texts, he makes a convincing case that Paul did in fact expect the early Christian communities to evangelize. This may seem obvious to most evangelicals, but it is important we see this conclusion backed by solid scholarship.”

In Chapter 4 Plummer offers incidental evidence to support the claims made in Chapters 2 and 3. He points to three other facets of the apostolic mission that were to be replicated in the life of the church.

1. Miracles. Signs and wonders would serve a dual purpose of strengthening Christians and attracting the notice of outsiders.

2. Prayer. Paul prayed for non-believers (Rom. 10:1), gave thanks for churches’ missionary activity (Phil. 1:3-5; 1 Thess. 1:2-8), and prayed about his congregations’ relationship with outsiders (1 Thess. 3:12). These sorts of prayers were to continue in the churches themselves.

3. Teaching and building. Paul’s expansive missionary vision did not end with frontier evangelism but spilled over in the edifying of the churches he planted. This is another example of apostolic mission that was expected to be replicated in the early church.

Finally, Plummer wraps things up with conclusions and implications in Chapter 5. After a summary of the ground already covered, Plummer offers this final advice to today’s church:

Just like the ancient churches that Paul addressed, modern churches should be active in proclaiming the gospel, suffering for the gospel, authenticating the gospel by their behavior, confirming the gospel through miracles, building-up the church, and praying for missions and the church. (144)

Amen and amen.

EVALUATING THE BOOK

The book’s strengths are already hinted at in the chapter synopses. Plummer is organized in his structure and meticulous in his research. Most crucially, by examining dozens of texts, he makes a convincing case that Paul did in fact expect the early Christian communities to evangelize. This may seem obvious to most evangelicals, but it is important we see this conclusion backed by solid scholarship.

My criticisms of the book are entirely unfair, in that they all fall under the category “dissertations make bad books.” Actually, I shouldn’t say bad, just inaccessible. The final implication section was too short and many sentences were too long. Pages comprised almost entirely of footnotes can be daunting for even the hearty pastor, as can untranslated German. And I confess a general annoyance with the academic convention of constantly saying “we will do this, then we will do that…we did this and we did that.” Worst of all, the Paternoster cover just screams “I’m for super smart people who eschew good taste! Don’t pick me up unless you have a Ph.D.!” Designing a cover with blah shades of windswept blue may be all the rage in academia, but it’s a particularly effective way to keep away normal readers.

But, as I said, those criticisms are asking the book to be something it’s not. I only bother to mention the complaints because I like the content so much. I hope Dr. Plummer will consider publishing a popular level edition of the material which puts the cookies a few shelves lower and hires a graphic design team not so tied to the 1970s. Robert Plummer is to be commended for an excellent and timely work. I hope his insights are made available to the church far and wide.

About the author:

Kevin DeYoung is the senior pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan, and is the author, with Greg Gilbert, of What is the Mission of the Church? (Crossway, forthcoming).

Reviewed by Jason Meyer

Book Review: 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible

Robert Plummer. 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2010. 352 pages. $17.99

For many people, reading the Bible can feel like getting lost in the woods, rather than taking a pleasant guided tour along a well-marked trail. Thankfully, Robert Plummer’s new book 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible provides a reliable trail map for understanding and applying all of Scripture.

As the title suggests, this book features forty key questions concerning the topic of biblical interpretation, along with Plummer’s succinct answers. The author helpfully grouped the forty questions into four parts: (1) Getting Started: Text, Canon, and Translation; (2) Approaching the Bible Generally; (3) Approaching Specific Texts; and (4) Issues in Recent Discussion. These four parts of the book are like a series of well-placed information booths positioned along the trail in a national park.

INFORMATIONAL BOOTHS FOR YOUR TREK THROUGH SCRIPTURE

The first information booth (Part 1) stands at the beginning of the trail and consists of seven pamphlets that help orient the traveler by addressing basic questions they might naturally ask at the outset of their trek into the Bible: (1) what it is, (2) how it is organized, (3) who wrote it, (4) whether it contains error, (5) whether the manuscripts were transmitted accurately, (6) who determined which books were included in the Bible, and (7) what the best English translation is.

The traveler is perhaps surprised to find how little they journey on the trail before seeing the second information booth (Part 2), which actually appears to them as two smaller booths: booth 2A marked “interpretation,” and booth 2B labeled “meaning.” These pamphlets are also preparatory in nature in that they prepare the reader to get the most out of the journey.

Booth 2A (interpretation) contains 6 pamphlets that address (1) why interpretation is important, (2) how it has been done throughout church history, (3 and 4) what some general interpretive principles are, (5) how to improve at interpreting the Bible, and (6) what tools are helpful for interpreting the Bible.

Booth 2B (meaning) contains 7 more pamphlets on big questions like (1) who determines meaning, (2) if there is only one meaning per text, (3) the role of the Spirit in determining meaning, (4) the overall message of the Bible, (5) if the Bible is really all about Jesus, (6) if all the commands still apply today, and (7) why there is so much disagreement about what the Bible means.

The hiker now begins the longest leg of the journey (100 pages). The pamphlets in booth 3 are like pamphlets that you stick in your back pocket and pull out as you encounter various sights along the way (i.e., different literary genres). The questions here naturally subdivide into three sections: 3A (genres found in both the OT and the NT), 3B (genres found primarily in the OT), and 3C (genres found primarily in the NT).

Booth 3A has 7 pamphlets. The first covers how to interpret literary genre and why it matters, while 2 to 7 give guidelines for interpreting (2) historical narrative, (3) prophecy in general, (4) typological prophecy, (5) apocalyptic literature, (6) exaggerated language, and (7) figures of speech.

“This book should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the Scriptures”

Booth 3B has four OT pamphlets dealing with how to interpret (1) proverbs, (2) poetry, (3) psalms in terms of classification, and (4) psalms in terms of interpretive principles, while booth 3C has four NT pamphlets covering (1) the history of interpreting parables, (2) general guidelines for parables, (3) the structure and nature of letters, and (4) general guidelines for letters.

When the traveler reaches the end of the trail, they find one last booth. Booth 4 (Part 4) contains informational pamphlets that discuss recent trends and issues raised by other travelers like (1) what the Bible says about the future, (2) what biblical criticism is, (3) what “speech act theory” is, (4) what the “Theological Interpretation of Scripture” is, and (5) other recent trends in biblical interpretation.

REQUIRED READING

This book should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the Scriptures. First, it is extremely well-written. Bruce Ware’s endorsement on the back cover is right on target: “how appropriate” that this book on understanding the Bible is itself “eminently understandable, crystal clear, and thoroughly engaging.”

Second, the book has a helpful and intuitive format. The question and answer structure of Kregel’s 40 Questions series honors an important principle: people often read books because they have specific questions that they want answered. We could call this the pamphlet principle. Someone who wanted to read this book as a whole would undoubtedly attain a more comprehensive understanding of how to interpret the Bible, but others who want to investigate specific issues will also be well served.

As someone who teaches biblical interpretation at the seminary level, I have given this book my highest endorsement by adopting it as a textbook for my class. It is not my main text because the condensed nature of the question and answer format sometimes means that the book does not provide enough detailed help on specific issues, especially for seminary students. Thus, Plummer’s book should be accompanied by the works of others like Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard’s Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Thomas Nelson, 2004) which shine in ways that this book does not.

I hope that it’s easy to see why this book’s strengths are important to me as a seminary teacher: I want students studying for the ministry of the Word to understand the Word! But my endorsement runs deeper. I have also found that it’s important to provide people with models that exemplify what you want them to learn. This book is a sterling example of how to answer specific questions clearly and succinctly, which is something all who teach the Bible must learn to do well.

About the author:

Jason Meyer is associate professor of New Testament at Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minneapolis, Minnesota and is the author of The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (B&H, 2009).

Reviewed by Brian Croft

Book Review: Loving the Church: God’s People Flourishing in God’s Family

John Crotts, Loving the Church: God’s People Flourishing in God’s Family. Shepherd Press, 2010. 140 pages. $13.95

In the last several years, many evangelical Christians have begun to take two vital institutions more seriously: the family and the local church. Yet what would happen if, instead of seeing these two institutions as partners, we began to pit one against the other? Hard to imagine.

Nevertheless, it is happening. This is the primary reason why John Crotts, pastor of Faith Bible Church in Sharpsburg, Georgia, wrote Loving the Church: God’s People Flourishing in God’s Family.

A WINSOME APOLOGETIC FOR THE CHURCH

As a faithful pastor of the same local church for over fifteen years, Crotts is burdened to equip Christian families to devote themselves to spiritual growth in the home. Yet among some evangelicals, he sees that that growth is being “disconnected” from any commitment to a local church (ch. 2). If you are familiar with many of 9Marks’ resources, you will not find this book to be full of new insights. Yet the author approaches his topic in a fresh and accessible way: he simulates a conversation with five Christians at a coffee shop.

The book proceeds in two main sections. Section one examines what the Bible teaches about the church. In this section Crotts does an excellent job of allowing the Bible to define the “blueprint of the local church,” its value to Christians, and why every Christian should be engaged in and committed to it.

Through his fictional dialogue, Crotts addresses some of the questions that Christians who neglect the church most commonly ask about the church. Further, Crotts highlights some key aspects of the church, such as Christ’s headship, the authority of God’s Word, elders, deacons, and the role that each Christian is to play (ch. 5).

Section two applies section one’s biblical arguments in order to help the reader understand how to act upon what God’s Word has revealed. Though the author’s focus is on families, every chapter can easily be applied to an individual Christian.

“This book speaks a piercing word to pastors. It reminds us of the biblical standard to which God calls us.”

This section is practical and accessible. It accurately lays out how Christian families should see the local church as not only central in God’s plan for them, but also as a tremendous benefit, not a burden, to them. Through many helpful illustrations, Crotts shows how it is a benefit to a Christian and their family to submit to Christ and his plan for the church (ch. 7), to allow pastors/elders to teach and shepherd them (ch. 8), to serve alongside deacons (ch. 9), and to embrace the fellowship and accountability that every Christian needs in order to walk faithfully with Christ (ch. 10).

WAYS THIS BOOK IS OF BENEFIT TO PASTORS

There are many benefits to this book for Christian families and individuals alike. In addition, here are some ways this book should particularly benefit pastors:

1. It’s a good tool for teaching people about the local church.

This book is a fun, easy read, yet it is chock full of rich, biblical content that would provide any Christian with a deeper understanding of the local church.

2. It highlights the significance of your preaching ministry.

Because the sermons of “famous pastors” have become so easily accessible, many so-called ordinary pastors grow discouraged and insecure about the value of their own preaching. Crotts encourages pastors to stay faithful in their preaching labor because God’s plan is for local churches to be led and fed by individual shepherds who watch over them:

When you are a member of a local church, God’s Word is applied specifically to you and your family by leaders who know you and see you functioning within the body of Christ. The specific elders that Jesus raised up in your church are personally charged to watch out for your soul and the souls of your family members. (96)

3. It reminds us why the biblical standard for a pastor exists.

A husband and father is called by God to shepherd his family. However, God’s plan is not that a Christian man should shepherd alone. Who helps that man shepherd his family? Who shepherds that man to faithfully shepherd his family? Pastors, we do! The author vividly portrays the pastor’s biblical calling (1 Tim. 3:1-7, Tit. 1: 5-9, 1 Pet. 5: 1-4) in order to help the reader realize that each family needs a shepherd outside themselves, and the husband/father needs assistance in his shepherding task.

This book speaks a piercing word to pastors. It reminds us of the biblical standard to which God calls us. And it reminds us why we must continue in faithfulness to that standard, for the sake of our own family as well as the local church that has been entrusted to us (1 Tim. 3:4-5).

About the author:

Brian Croft is the senior pastor of Auburndale Baptist Church in Louisville Kentucky and is the author, with Phil Newton, of Conduct Gospel-Centered Funerals (Day One, 2011).

May/June 2011

©9Marks

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.

[1] McLaren and McKnight have spoken at the Q ideas conference that Lyons leads. See www.qideas.org/event/past-portland.aspx. With a number of others, Lyons references Wright as a leading voice for the restorers. Gabe Lyons, The Next Christians: The Good News About the End of Christian America—How a New Generation is Restoring the Faith (Doubleday, 2010), 53.

[2] Ibid, 11.

[3] Ibid, 5.

[4] Ibid, 12.

[5] Ibid, 11.

[6] Ibid, 51.

[7] Ibid, 192-93.

[8] For discussion of Jonathan Edwards’ sermon “Heaven Is a World of Love” from which this quotation comes, see Owen Strachan and Douglas Sweeney, Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell (Moody, 2010).

[9] Lyons, 60.

[10] See Graham Cole, God the Peacemaker: How Atonement Brings Shalom, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson (IVP Academic, 2009).

[11] D. A. Carson has explored the ties between gospel and kingdom in his Scandalous: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Crossway, 2010), ch. 3.

[12] Lyons, 55.

[13] For one example, see Jonathan Merritt, “Creation Care: As Much as God Is,” Christianity Today, June 2010, online at www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/june/26.46.html.

[14] The meaning of Colossians 1:15-23 has been hotly debated in the history of the church at the highest levels of scholarship. Some scholars, for example, have argued that the text teaches universal salvation. P. T. O’Brien has a careful outline of different positions on the text in Colossians-Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary vol. 44, edited by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Thomas Nelson, 1982). The focus in O’Brien’s commentary on the text is not on what Christians are to do but what Christ has done. “Paul affirms that this universal reconciliation has been brought about, not in some other-worldly drama, but through something done in history, the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross…The reconciliation of the principalities and powers is in mind.” (56) It is possible to attempt to construct theology which links earthly reconciliation to the ministry of Christ, but this must be done very carefully from appropriate texts. Cf. also Murray J. Harris, Colossians & Philemon (Eerdmans, 1991), 43-52.

[15] Lyons, 78.

[16] Ibid, 81.

[17] Ibid, 87.

[18] Ibid, 50-51.

[19] Ibid, 60. The entire discussion from 31-47 is disturbing for all the reasons elucidated here, as is Lyons’s conception of the “Evangelizers,” the group that comes in for some of his hardest rebukes (37). I was also personally uncomfortable with Lyons critiquing his own parents for their approach to secular culture (38). I would not be read as in any way speaking for Lyons’s parents, but I wonder about the appropriateness of such commentary.

[20] Lyons, 104.

[21] Timothy George, “John Calvin: Comeback Kid,” Christianity Today, September 2009, vol. 53, no. 9, accessed online at www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/september/14.27.html.

[22] See Eric Metaxas, Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery (HarperOne, 2007).

[23] Douglas Sweeney, Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word (InterVarsity, 2009), 66.

[24] See Martin Marty, Righteous Empire: The Protestant Experience in America (Harper Torchbooks, 1977).

[25] See Garth Rosell, The Surprising Work of God: Harold John Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the Rebirth of Evangelicalism (Baker, 2008).

[26] Joel Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism (New York: Oxford, 1999).

[27] For an exploration of the many dimensions of the gospel and an articulation of the central place of Christ’s atoning work in it, see D.A. Carson, “What is the Gospel?—Revisited” in For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper, ed. Sam Storms and Justin Taylor (Crossway, 2010). Though the gospel, Carson writes, “grounds ethics, aphorisms, and systematics, it is none of these three: it is news, good news, and therefore must be publicly announced.” (158) This chapter is the first place to go in this discussion. Right after that, readers should consult Greg Gilbert’s very helpful What Is the Gospel? (Crossway, 2010).

[28] On Luther on this point, see R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (2nd ed., Tyndale House, 2000). See Russell D. Moore, Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families & Churches (Crossway, 2009).