Authentic Means Real

View part 1
View part 2
View part 3
View part 4

Part 5:Ministry to the Social and Physical Needs of Our Society

The biblical mandate for social relief ministry

The ethics of generosity in helping the poor is rooted in the person and work of Christ himself according to 2 Cor. 8:9, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.” This example of Christ’s should lead us to see our responsibility to use the wealth God has entrusted to us to glorify him by sharing with the poor.

John draws the connection this way: “We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. (1 Jn. 3:16-19) Christ’s love should move us to compassion for those who are suffering from poverty.

Jesus agreed that caring for the physical needs of others is an essential part of what it means to love others as we love ourselves in the parable of the good Samaritan. (Lk. 10:25-37)

We are all made in the image of God, and it should pain us that there is gross inequality. When Paul led relief efforts for the poor believers in Judea, he reasoned with the Corinthians that they should give generously to the effort because, “this is not for the ease of others and for your affliction, but by way of equality–at this present time your abundance being a supply for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want, that there may be equality; as it is written, `He who {gathered} much did not have too much, and he who {gathered} little had no lack.’” (2 Cor. 8:13-15) Of course, the ideal is not that all Christians become poor so that there will be equality.

Rather, the ideal is that the poor become more prosperous so that their needs are met.

Jesus taught caring for the poor in very strong terms when he described this scene at the last judgment:

“Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat…’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, `Lord, when did we see you hungry…?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me.’” (Mt. 25:34-40)

Paul makes it clear that we should also prioritize the needs of Christian poor, without neglecting non-Christian poor. (Gal. 6:10) However, this support of the poor is for those who are victims of tragedy, or who are disadvantaged, or not able to work. It is not for those who are unwilling to work. (2 Thess. 3:6- 10)

Finally, the extent to which we go in helping the disadvantaged is a matter of private conscience. It is not to be legislated by the church. This can be seen from Paul’s comments in 2 Cor. 9:7 “Let each do just as he has purposed in his own heart. . . not under compulsion. . .”

The book of Proverbs has some striking promises and warnings in the area of caring for the poor. Consider what each of these verses teach, and what the application is.

• Prov. 13:23 “Abundant food is in the fallow ground of the poor, but it is swept away by injustice.”
• Prov. 14:21 “He who despises his neighbor sins, But happy is he who is gracious to the poor.”
• Prov. 14:31 “He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors him.”
• Prov. 19:17 “He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord, And he will repay him for his good deed.”
• Prov. 21:13 “He who shuts his ear to the cry of the poor Will also cry himself and not be answered.”
• Prov. 22:9 “He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.”
• Prov. 28:27 “He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses.”
• Prov. 29:7 “The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.”

Xenos’ strategy for dealing with social relief ministry

At Xenos, we believe that the church needs to carry out the biblical mandate outlined above to the extent we are able, based on a carefully thought-out community development strategy. Our social relief ministry, Urban Concern follows these principles:

1. We should devote the vast majority of our resources to projects that effect permanent socio-economic as well as spiritual change. In other words, we want to impact families and communities with money, help, and the gospel in a way that is self-sustaining over decades, not merely feed hungry people in a way that is soon forgotten in an endless sea of need. Many social problems have spiritual and moral causes which need to be addressed at the same time that we meet immediate need. Any immediate needs that we meet should be a part of an over all strategy to effect permanent change within a specified community.
2. We should devote more resources to meeting need in foreign countries where poverty is much worse than in the United States. This part of our strategy must be worked out in conjunction with the imperatives in the area of world missionary outreach mentioned earlier.
3. We should accept limitations in the size of the area and the number of people we help for the sake of effecting real change. This means that we are obligated to say “No” to many worth-while projects in order to avoid diluting our impact in chosen communities.

Filed under: ministry to the poor, organic church, social justice by Dennis McCallum
3 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 »

Xenos Christian Fellowship (www.xenos.org) began planting house churches in Columbus Ohio in1970 during the Jesus revolution. During the next 37 years, scores of house churches were planted in Central Ohio. Together, they formed an association viewed as a single local church, along the lines of large city churches in the New Testament. A single eldership oversees the ministry of 850 leaders (“servants” “ministers” or “deacons” in the New Testament).

Today, Xenos is an association of around 270 house churches with over 5000 people attending. Each house church sees its goal as self-replication from within. The group is known for strong personal discipleship and evangelism that penetrates the - non Christian community in Columbus. Unlike house church planting movements that are completely spontaneous, Xenos house churches need to gain approval from the central eldership for new church plants. Each church is team-led with 3-6 leaders who must qualify for the role in terms of personal character, learning, and proven ministry competence.

Today, I am most excited about the church multiplication movement growing in the huge campus area formed by the proximity of Ohio State University (50,000+ students) and Columbus State University (20,000+ students). In this area, Xenos has grown during the past 10 years from three to thirty student-aged house churches, while planting eight additional house churches based on married graduates moving into family life. The average size of each group is 23 students. Like other Xenos home churches, these groups are led by teams of leaders who have completed formal classroom instruction, have won non Christians to faith, and have mentored them in personal discipleship.

Xenos house churches also operate “cell groups.” These groups are all male or female, and center on discipleship, in-depth study, and accountability. Campus house churches also operate “ministry houses.” These are houses of discipleship, where 6 to 12 students live together, learning how to meet others’ needs, hosting fellowship events, and reaching out to the non Christian community. The group currently operates 65 such houses.

A lot of the house churches we have contacted around the country are older, and that usually means something very different in terms of the ethos of the groups. We are excited to see student-aged believers taking the ‘bit in their mouth’ so to speak, and running off with this expanding movement. Most of the 700+ students met Christ at Xenos, so we don’t see any of the traditional church mentality that can be so hard to break out of. The majority of our students are eager for the day they can lead their own house church.

My daughter and I wrote our book, Organic Disciplemaking to help train upcoming disciple makers in the group. There you can read a good description of how this kind of church planting group runs.

Filed under: campus ministry, church planting, house church, organic church, simple church, xenos fellowship by Dennis McCallum
2 Comments »