Authentic Means Real

View part 1
View part 2
View part 3

The fourth calling for the church is to make disciples. I discuss this thoroughly in Organic Disciplemaking

Jesus called the church to go and make disciples of all the peoples. Mt. 28. A disciple is a student. Ancient rabbis spent years with their disciples, teaching their way of life, their understanding of scripture, and how to teach it to others. Like Jesus, they often lived with their disciples for extended periods. The process of discipleship was a complete shaping of a new rabbi—a passing on of everything the rabbi had; his character, his knowledge, his values, and his wisdom. Ancient Jewish discipleship was an educational process, but it contained much more than our modern concept of education. Rabbis transmitted biblical knowledge, but the close association in daily life also transmitted elements not found in books. The rabbi sought to transmit his outlook, wisdom, and character. This was personalized education where two men formed a close, trusting relationship. Within that relationship, the rabbi could sense inner spiritual needs in his disciple and minister to those. The idea was to produce a certain kind of person. The intensive personal attention in this style of training dictated that a rabbi focus on only a few disciples at a time.

Jesus apparently took this model and used it fully, even expanding on the norm. He lived and traveled with the twelve, and seems to have focused even more on the top three: James, John, and Peter. Although some New Testament authors refer to all Christians as disciples (in the sense that they are all followers of Christ), the majority use refers to those who were trainees of a specific teacher.

The same seems to be true of Paul (the only apostle for whom we have extensive biographical information). Right from the beginning, Paul worked at discipleship. After his three-year stay in Damascus, he had to escape by being lowered from the city walls. According to Acts 9:25 it was “his disciples” who lowered him in a basket.

Later, Paul lived and traveled with numerous young men and at least one married couple, teaching them his extraordinary body of knowledge, both in the Old Testament scriptures (where he was an expert) but also from the amazing revelations he had been given by God. They also got the chance to see Paul at work in the field, and no-doubt participated with him in actual ministry situations. This kind of field training could develop skills and understanding in a way no classroom could. Paul was in a position to see with his own eyes how younger workers ministered. That would lead to the best kind of coaching and feedback.

More than 30 men and women are mentioned by name as fellow-workers with Paul. It seems likely that many of these were discipled by Paul, and there may have been others not mentioned. In a ministry spanning roughly 30 years, Paul could easily have raised up 30 or more disciples.

In one famous passage, Paul instructs his favorite disciple, Timothy, to carry on the work of discipleship:

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. (2 Tim. 2:2)

We can see Paul was concerned with duplicating disciples down through 4 generations: 1) himself 2) Timothy 3) “reliable men” and 4) “others.” From this single verse, we see clearly that Paul used personal discipleship as a conscious strategy for developing leadership in the early church. He also urged women to disciple other women (Tit. 2:3), a practice unknown in Judaism.

In the New Testament church, where there were no seminaries or graduate schools of theology, the church’s leadership was apparently all raised up by a process of personal discipleship. In the absence of any mention of other means for raising up leadership, we can only suppose that such discipleship was likely not just the main means, but the only means used. Apparently not only leaders, but most Christians were discipled at some level in the early church. Paul says, “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.” (Col. 1:28).

Filed under: disciple, early church, leadership training by Dennis McCallum
3 Comments »

Not good enough.

As a leader in a house church planting ministry, I so wanted to like this book! Frank Viola has been writing in favor of a more organic understanding of church life for years. Observers have often pointed out similarities between his books and some of mine. I see the overlap as well, along with some differences, which should be clear from my most recent book, Organic Disciplemaking. [The need for, and nature of disciplemaking was one area of solid agreement!] Readers like me who share the authors’ desire for an organic, New Testament-style church will experience real excitement while reading some parts of this courageous critique of the modern institutional church. But I’m afraid the work is seriously flawed.

We’ve all seen steer wrestling at rodeos. The cowboy seized the horns of the steer and twists his head, eventually forcing the hapless animal in a direction he never wanted to go. Some interpreters steer-wrestle the Bible and history to fit pre-conceived views of the church. I’m not denying that many, and maybe most of their claims are true. But mixing in exaggeration and selectivity can seriously distort the picture.

I am on their side of the river, and I’m recommending this book, even though I think they over-reached on a number of their points and weakened their case as a result.

Buildings: They show how the concept of church buildings as holy places originated and drew most of its content from pagan influences. They focus on the major formalism added at the time of Constantine, but in fact, church buildings were around, and were viewed as holy houses of God well before Constantine. He did greatly expand the acceptance and the number of “churches” throughout the empire. They then over-reach to the extreme of implying that using buildings at all is pagan and alien to the New Testament.

Their suggestion that the church could just rent or borrow a building like the schoolroom of Tyrannus or Solomon’s portico for “special occasions” doesn’t match New Testament precedent. Paul didn’t rent the schoolroom for a special occasion, but as a base of ministry that he carried on “daily.” (Acts 19:9) Solomon’s portico was in regular use also. Acts 2:46 says, “Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart.” Why should we conclude that large venues like this were for special occasions only, when they appear in the same sentence with things like breaking bread and house church meeting? Outdoor venues like that work well for warm-climates like Jerusalem. It wouldn’t work so well where I live in Ohio.

The point is that the poisonous part—viewing buildings as the “house of God” and auditoriums as “sanctuaries” (which means “holy places”)—should be decried without discrediting the whole argument by exaggerating. The authors think any ownership or regular use of buildings is bad, and steer-wrestle the scriptures to suit their preconceived view.

Read on to Part 2

Filed under: Barna, Pagan Christianity, Viola, church history, discipleship, early church, history by Dennis McCallum
19 Comments »

Read part 1
Read part 2

In this post we examine what the early church did in it’s meetings.

The authors correctly argue that we search in vain for a “worship service” concept in the New Testament. Today’s order of worship came from a combination of the Old Testament and pagan sources, as they effectively demonstrate. This drastic difference between traditional worship services and New Testament church meetings is an issue that should be pressed hard because the church is unwilling to face the truth about this sacred cow.

But then the authors begin to claim that the New Testament church was devoid of preaching, and that nobody should preach (unless it was a special occasion or the preacher was a church planter)! They say, “the contemporary sermon delivered for Christian consumption is foreign to both Old and New Testaments.” (88) And, “despite the fact that the contemporary sermon does not have a shred of biblical merit to support its existence, it continues to be uncritically admired in the eyes of most present-day Christians.” (101) “The sermon actually detracts from the very purpose for which God designed the church gathering.” (p. 86)

At first I thought they were saying that the formalized 3-point alliterated sermons taught in homiletics classes were alien, but no. They mean any sermon. Preaching did not happen in early church meetings, according to these authors, except on special occasions or by visiting church planters. They think Crysostom and Augustine popularized the Greco-Roman homily taught in rhetoric classes. (273) They say giving sermons and the art of preaching were “stolen from the pagans. A polluted stream made its entrance into the Christian faith and nuddied its waters. And that stream flows just as strongly today as it did in the fourth century.” (93)

I felt confused. Yeah, foreign elements came into preaching during this period, especially the fact that it was restricted to bishops and priests.

But consider the following:

• Paul characterized his times with the Ephesians as “teaching you publicly and from house to house.” (Acts 20:20), a practice he pursued “daily” according to Luke. (Acts 19:9)
• The Christians in Jerusalem “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching.” (Acts 2:42)
• Paul’s calls on Timothy to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:1,2) and to “give attention to the public reading of scripture” (1 Timothy 4:13). The pastoral epistles are loaded with instructions to preach and teach.
• He includes “if anyone has a teaching,” in his description of a house church meeting. (1 Cor. 14:26) Yes, this could be a short word-based admonition as they argue, or it could be a planned teaching. Nothing in the passage says which is true.
• He refers to elders who “work hard at preaching and teaching.” (1 Thess. 5:17) This one is important because it shows these are not visiting church planters, but week-in week-out preachers.

All these point to the fact that early church meetings centered substantially on the word of God and preaching/teaching. Our earliest description of a Christian meeting (Justin Martyr in the first apology c. 140 AD) says, “the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.” So Viola’s and Barna’s claim that the early church was all spontaneous and subjective singing and personal sharing is very different, I think, from what we see in the New Testament, just as what we see in today’s worship service is different.

I totally agree with their claim that the idea of a worship service arose as a response to the vacuum left by the loss of mutual ministry during the third century. This can be adequately demonstrated. But why do they weaken their argument by over-reaching and trying to prove that leaders didn’t preach in the New Testament?

The New Testament does demonstrate regular teaching and preaching, contrary to their argument. Preaching did not have to be impromptu and unplanned as they argue.

Paul calls on Timothy to be diligent so he can “handle accurately the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15) That implies studying. Paul’s “preaching daily at the lecture hall of Tyrannus” Acts 19:9) doesn’t sound very impromptu. The crowd at Solomon’s porch numbered in the thousands. Are we to suppose the apostles weren’t teaching and preaching to large crowds even though it says they were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching? This was all impromptu and interactive? I don’t think so. There is no basis for claiming these lectures are impromptu, or only for special occasions, other than the authors’ preconceptions.

As discussed in the previous post, Viola and Barna have a concept of a meeting without planning or human direction, and the notion of preaching the word doesn’t fit that picture. But I don’t think their picture comes from the New Testament. In Acts 20, Luke records a “breaking of bread” meeting where Paul taught and preached until midnight. That’s a lot of preaching and teaching! I believe if anything, the preaching in the New Testament was way longer and more in-depth than typical sermons today.

Yes, the nature of preaching changed in later church history, and it became something that is not questioned or discussed by the group, which is a mistake. (That’s why we open the floor for comments, questions, or sharing after each and every sermon at our large and small meetings.) But advocates for organic s of the church should avoid mixing exaggerated claims in with legitimate claims, thus leaving themselves open to easy dismissal.

See a balanced and well-thought out review here.

Read on to Part 4

Filed under: early church, preaching, worship by Dennis McCallum
4 Comments »

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3

Why critique a book in detail chapter by chapter? On the Amazon reviews for this book and on Frank’s website, critics are frequently charged with not having read the book. At other times, defenders have complained that critics have failed to argue with the content or points in the book but just dismissed in a general way. Well I did read it, and my problems are with specific positions taken.

Today we start with the chapter, “The Pastor: Obstacle to every member functioning.” This is the most accurate chapter in the book. Traditional church people will have a hard time facing the truth here, but Viola and Barna have correctly traced the development of the monarchical of leadership that has ted church history and still controls the church today, in spite of the reformation.

The shift away from corporate leadership to single leaders, the separation of the idea of bishops from the idea of elders, these are changes that began very early in the church. The concentration of power into a hierarchical structure, along with the idea that only these were capable of interpreting scripture, later supplemented with the idea that only they could offer the sacraments; these added up to a complete disenfranchisement of normal Christians from meaningful ministry.

Tithing and clergy salaries: Their section on how tithing is strictly an Old Testament approach to giving is excellent. Unfortunately, again they feel the need to over-reach. They claim, “Elders (shepherds) in the New Testament were not salaried. They were men with an earthly vocation. They gave to the flock rather than taking from it…. Giving a salary to pastors elevates them above the rest of God’s people.” (180)

Certainly, there were unpaid elders in the New Testament, but these statements are exaggerated, unsupported, and wrong. The authors correctly point out that Paul sometimes worked as a tent-maker and paid his own expenses, but they imply that he always operated that way. They ignore the cases when he received financial support (Acts. 18:5 compare Phil. 4:15). They ignore that Paul and Jesus taught that the laborer is worthy of his hire, referring to Christian workers being supported by the church. They steer-wrestle the passage where Paul told Timothy that elders who work hard at preaching and teaching should be paid generously. (1Tim. 5:17, 18) In a question at the end of the chapter, they try to respond to this passage with a literalistic interpretation of “double honor,” saying it means these elders should get more respect. This ignores the context and how Paul uses the notion of not muzzling the ox while he is threshing. (vs. 18) They fail to deal with Gal. 6:6 in context: “Let him who is taught share all good things with him who teaches.” According to the authors, only itinerant workers could be supported financially. In fact, the early church did pay elders who taught a lot, although not all elders.

Their theology of church finance is flawed. They think anyone who lets the church support them is “taking from the church” instead of giving to the church. By this logic, anyone who lets others in the church bless them (with, for instance, counseling, teaching, encouragement) is a taker instead of a giver. In fact, we are to serve and give and to let others serve us. They think paying someone elevates them above the others in the church–a view that, if true would remove any basis for paying anyone ever. My objection to these views is not that they are not held by any mainstream church group or theologians (although that is true). The problem is that they are not taught in scripture. When Paul says “the laborer is worthy of his wages,” referring to elders, he is quoting Jesus. This is the New Testament teaching.

I should point out that my understanding of church finance was developed and on record long before I ever received a dollar from the church. Our church was approaching a thousand people in twenty five home churches before we ever put anyone on staff. So, I’m not speaking from a self-serving or biased perspective. When my partner and I gave up our business and went to work for the church I wept because I had wanted to pay my own way. But the church didn’t agree and scripture speaks directly to this issue. This claim that elders were never paid in the New Testament church is completely novel and simply doesn’t square with the text of the New Testament.

Filed under: early church, ecclesiology, organic church, pastors, simple church by Dennis McCallum
5 Comments »

Here are some thoughts from Organic Disciplemaking on multiplication growth as opposed to linear growth in the church.

Multiplication Growth

The period from the death of Christ until the end of the first century was the most fruitful in the history of the church. During these few decades, Christianity spread clear across the Roman Empire and even penetrated deeper into Africa, the Parthian Empire, and India. The best estimates put the number of Christians at the end of the first century at around 1 million.1 That’s an increase of 2000 times the number of Christians before Pentecost (perhaps 500). And all of this growth was facilitated by the process of discipleship. Without mass media, without advertising, without church buildings, and without seminaries, the primitive church expanded at a rate never equaled in the nineteen centuries since.

Both Christian and secular observers recognize the New Testament church as a perfect example of a church planting movement. In this type of movement, local house churches each strive to replicate themselves by planting additional churches. The result can be exponential growth.

To understand the power of exponential growth, consider the following scenario: Nobody would feel bad about a church that could win fifty thousand people in two years. In fact, we know of no church that has done so well. And if they won an additional fifty thousand each two years thereafter, such a church could win 1.5 million people during a sixty-year period. Remarkable indeed! This would truly be a super church.

On the other hand, a single house church of thirty people, where the average member did nothing but win and disciple one other person during a two-year period would seem rather unremarkable. They would have a mere sixty people after two years, and would become two home churches. But if the original group and the new group both did the same thing during the following two years, and this process continued for the next sixty years, the result would be far more remarkable than that of the super church. In fact the duplicating group would have won 16 million people! They would, in fact have out-performed the super church by more than ten times! Not only that, but within another twenty-five years, this duplicating group would have won every person on earth.

We are not suggesting these numbers are realistic, but they do illustrate the power of exponential growth. However, notice two important points about these calculations:

1. To achieve true multiplication growth, the duplication of individuals and churches must go forward without degradation. If the quality of disciples or churches declines at all with each duplication event, the whole process breaks down very quickly. Quality is one key to ongoing duplication. Historians have noted that church planting movements tend to fizzle out after a number of years. Why? Probably some movements compromise on quality for the sake of quantity. Others may grow so concerned about quality that they cease duplicating and become saddled with too many rules and restrictions.

2. In the duplication model, results are very small during the early years, compared with the super church. By year 10, for example, the duplicating group would have only 480 members in sixteen house churches, while the super church would already have a quarter million members. Can you imagine these two groups looking over at each other? How inferior the duplicating group would feel with less than five hundred members to show for ten years hard work, seeing a super church nearby that had reached a quarter million people during the same period! At this stage the super church would be more than five hundred times larger than the duplicating group. Surely, it would seem, God’s blessing rests on the super church, and not on the duplicating church. (Although we know the duplicating church is actually doing ten times better than the super church, though it doesn’t show yet). It would take a powerful act of faith to continue using the duplication approach. Anyone impatient for quick results will abandon duplication.

Organic growth is biblical and powerful.

Filed under: church growth, church planting, disciple, discipleship, early church, organic church by Dennis McCallum
2 Comments »