Authentic Means Real

See part 1: The Ministry of Reconciliation
Okay, after reconciliation, or along with it, comes Fellowship.

The early Christians “continuously devoted themselves to fellowship.” (Acts 2:42) The word for “fellowship” is koinonia, which means “to have in common” or “to share.” As those who are united with Christ, we are to share the life of Christ with one another in a way that results in individual and corporate spiritual growth. This is accomplished through the exchange of God’s love and truth, which is called “ministry” (which simply means “service”).

Koinonia is viewed by the New Testament as a non-optional environment for spiritual growth.

Clearly such koinonia is not just a matter of attending one or two meetings a week. It is much more than that. This is why the verse so often used to stress the importance of attending church (Hebrews 10:25 “. . .not forsaking the assembling together as is the habit of some. . .”), is frequently misunderstood today. This verse is often taken to mean that only our presence at church meetings is necessary. Instead, we find that according to 1 Cor. 12:21 (”. . .the eye cannot say to the hand, `I have no need of you’. . .”), it is not just the presence of the other members that we need, but also their function.

Christians are viewed as the body of Christ because we are spiritually united with Christ and with each other. Since we are members of one another, we need to relate to each other in a mutually interdependent way. The important point, therefore, is not just that we attend meetings (although this is a necessary aspect), but that we authentically share the life of Christ with one another. Thus, “. . . speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the Head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” (Eph. 4:15,16).

How can we practice koinonia?

The New Testament defines normative involvement in Christian koinonia in two major ways. One way is by serving other Christians with our spiritual gifts and receiving others’ service through their spiritual gifts. The sphere in which we use our gifts is our ministry, or service.

Another, and perhaps more basic way to practice koinonia is through loving one another in various practical ways. In Jn. 13:34,35, Jesus told his disciples that they were to “love one another as I have loved you.” Since they had been with Jesus for several years, they knew how he expressed love to them. Since other Christians would not have this opportunity, the apostles carefully described what this love looks like. Through what are sometimes called the “one another” imperatives of the epistles, we are given a profile of the ways that we can love one another. Below are examples:

• Encourage one another (1 Thess. 5:11; Heb. 3:13; 10:25)
• Admonish one another (Col. 3:16; Rom. 15:14)
• Confess your sins to one another (Jas. 5:16)
• Forgive one another (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13)
• Accept one another (Rom. 14:1; 15:7)
• Serve one another (Gal. 5:13; Rom. 12:10)
• Build up one another (1 Thess. 5:11)
• Be hospitable to one another (1 Pet. 4:9)

As we practice giving love to other Christians in these ways, and as we allow them to express love to us in these ways, we are practicing koinonia and expressing mutual interdependence as members of Christ and one another.

Christian meetings are important in this regard because they enable us to experience koinonia during the meeting in varying degrees. They also facilitate the meeting of other Christians with whom we can build koinonia-based friendships. New Testament churches commonly met in homes as well as in large groups (see Acts 2:46; 20:20; Rom. 16:5).

Can a church be considered authentic if it has only a third of its members going to a home group? I don’t think so. We have 130% attendance at home groups. Yeah, we count our attendance from out home groups, not our big meetings! And that’s the way it should be.

Filed under: Uncategorized by Dennis McCallum
No Comments »

See Part 1: The ministry of reconciliation
See Part 2: Koinonia
Ephesians 4:11 says, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.”

There are two very different interpretations of this passage which lead to two very different answers to the role of leaders in the local church.

The King James Version places a comma between “saints” and “for” in vs. 12. thus suggesting that the leaders do three things:

1. equip the saints
2. the work of ministry
3. building up the body of Christ.

In other words, the leaders do all significant spiritual work and the rest do very little. The King James Version reflected this view which had been held for centuries and reinforced it for succeeding generations. Even today, this is the prominent view of leadership in many, probably most, churches.

Consider the following quotes by leaders and theologians:

• “. . .both the clergy and the laity have leadership roles, but they are different roles. The clergy are primarily responsible for the assembled phase of the church life. They are called and trained as professionals to preach, to lead worship, to educate. . ., to provide. . .theological counsel, and to lead the congregation’s organizational and fellowship life. . .”
• “Lay leadership in these areas is important, but it is secondary and supportive.”
• “(A corporate executive who) realizes that it is the Holy Spirit who has made him head of the research division in a large corporation.”
• “(The hospital elevator operator) who exercises his ministry by humming a hymn by taking the patient’s up to the operating room.” (All from Wentz, Ministry As a Way of Life)

Without the comma, everything changes. The leaders equip the believers to do the work of ministry and they build up the body of Christ. In other words, all Christians are ministers with significant spiritual roles to play.

The leaders’ primary job is not to do it all, but to equip the “laymen” to minister. They are train them in doctrine and ministry, help them to find their unique ministry roles, provide structures in which they can play these role - and then let them minister!!

Which interpretation is correct?

Without any doubt, the latter is the correct interpretation. For what are the saints being equipped, if not to do the work of ministry? The cases used in Greek also point to the second interpretation.

Vs. 7,8 make it clear that every Christian is spiritually gifted. Such gifting is given in order to perform spiritual ministry (1 Cor. 12:4-6).

Vs. 16 sums up the teaching of this passage by saying that the church is built up by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part.

Many other passages in the New Testament teach that all Christians are gifted and called to ministry (cf. Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:4-11; 1 Pet 4:10,11).

The big problem we see today is that in one church after another, little or no effort is made to equip their members to do anything. Even when churches have training classes (usually attended by a minority) these several week classes are so superficial they don’t qualify the people to do anything.

How can any church claim it is doing what the New Testament calls for if they make no strong effort to equip, or train their members for ministry?

Filed under: Uncategorized by Dennis McCallum
No Comments »

In the New Testament God used human leaders to bring blessing and feeding to the church. From the day of Pentecost, the apostles acted as de facto leaders. They preached, taught, (Acts 2:42) and ruled on issues that came up for debate (Acts 6:1,2). They were able to delegate leadership to others (Acts 6:3,4).

After the period of the Jerusalem church, attention shifts to Paul’s missionary journeys. Paul, too, was an apostle, and an obvious leader. He served in Antioch with a group of men who were said to be “prophets and teachers.” (Acts 13:1) These were probably the elders in Antioch, though never says that. It does record that “they” [probably the same men] laid hands on Paul and Barnabas and sent them off on the first journey.” The reason they chose Paul and Barnabas was divine election (see below). On that first journey we see them appointing elders in the new churches they planted. (Acts 14:23) The fasting and prayer that preceded these appointments suggests they were seeking God’s choice for leaders. These appointments ware made during their return trip through these cities, indicating that some time had passed (probably only weeks) since their original visit.

During the second journey, Paul added Timothy to his band, likely leading to Timothy’s eventual recognition as an apostle. Although this is never actually stated, Timothy acts in the role of an apostle in appointing elders and overseeing elders according to 1 Timothy. (Ch. 3; 5:17ff) The only criteria given in Acts for why Paul chose Timothy is that “The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him.” (Acts 16:2) However, in 2 Tim. 1:6 Paul refers to bestowing gifts on Timothy by the laying on of his own hands (most likely the gift of apostleship). This is also referred to in 1 Tim. 4:14 where Paul reminds him of his gift, “which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.” Thus, if a prophetic utterance was the occasion of Timothy’s choosing, we again have a case of divine election.

Both Timothy and Titus are given the job of appointing elders. Of interest is the fact that Paul has left them behind to do this work, implying that it was not possible to select elders when he was there. This suggests that they wanted to see these men actually living out leadership roles before making the choice to recognize them as elders. Likewise, Paul cautions Timothy about deacons: “They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.” (1 Tim. 3:10)

Overarching these observations about leadership in the early church, we see evidence of divine election in the selection of leaders. This should be clear for the following reasons.

	The Apostles were chosen by Christ. The correct context of John 15:16 (You did not chose me, but I chose you) is not unconditional election or irresistible grace, but election to the role of apostle. Likewise, God’s choice is evident in the story of Paul’s conversion (where God refers to his future ministry) and in the story of the Spirit speaking to the leaders at Antioch in Acts 13 (saying, “Set apart for me Paul and Barnabas…”). Timothy was apparently named an apostle by a prophetic message from God. (1 Tim. 4:14) We find, therefore, that when it comes to the role of leadership in the New Testament, the key is whether or not God has chosen the person.
	Paul comments on his own credentials for leadership in the book of 2 Corinthians 3:1-3: “Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts…” Here, Paul contrasts human credentials (letters of commendation) to his own credentials, which are nothing less than the marks of divine election. Instead of humans writing his letter, he says the Spirit of God wrote it on human hearts.
	Notice Paul’s reference in 2 Cor. 10:12 to “the field God has assigned to us.” God apparently assigns fields of ministry, and Paul’s proof that he was assigned the field in question is that he had done the work there, as the context makes clear.
	According to Rom. 12:8, there is a gift of leadership. Likewise, Eph. 4:11,12 says, “It was he [God] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.” This is in harmony with the notion that God “has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.” (1 Cor. 12:18) In other words, these passages seem to say that God chooses who should lead his church. We believe leaders can serve even without a gift of leadership, although we should seek out and include those with such a gift if they have good character.
	We see in the waiting period between the planting of churches and the selection of elders an apparent effort to discern who God wants to serve as leaders. This is also the best explanation for why deacons are tested before they are ordained. The existing leadership seems to assume that God has certain people whom he wants to lead, and their mission is to discern who those people are. Paul warns Timothy not to be too hasty to lay on hands [i.e. to chose leaders 1 Tim. 5:22 context].
	Election was evident with Old Testament leaders as well. God often made a personal appearance to choose leaders, as with Abraham and Moses. To David God says, “I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be leader over My people Israel.” (1Chron. 17:7) Indeed, all the legitimate kings of Israel were anointed by prophets as chosen of God.
	Mature Christian character is a prerequisite for leadership in all cases. Even highly gifted leaders who lack the needed character qualities may not be named as leaders. This is implied in the requirements for elders and deacons, which focus on character qualities.

We conclude that God, not humans, makes a person a spiritual leader. As existing church leaders, our mission is not to create leaders out of non-leaders by naming them or ordaining them. On the contrary, our mission is to discern whom God has chosen to be a leader, and to ratify, or recognize that choice. In naming leaders we are indicating that we believe God has shown this person is already chosen to be a leader because he or she is already doing the work of a leader and has the character of a leader.

Read about raising up leadership in the church in Organic Disciplemaking.

What are the implications if God chooses leaders?

Filed under: Uncategorized by Dennis McCallum
No Comments »

Last time, I argued that God chooses spiritual leaders. If we accept that premise, what are the implications for ministry today?

Implications

The implications of this perspective on leadership are profound. If we conclude that God chooses leaders, our goal becomes cooperatiaon with the choice of God in assuring that only divinely appointed leaders are recognized. Therefore:

	We should avoid appointing someone as a leader on any basis other than our belief that God has chosen him or her for that role. This rules out leadership based on seniority, on level of scholarship, degrees earned, prestige in the community, personal friendship, etc.
	We should exercise caution when giving, or providing ministry to a young Christian. We should provide opportunity to build ministry, but we would not want to install a young worker into a well-developed ministry he or she did not actually build. Otherwise, we might simulate from the human side what God should provide from his side. The result could be that a person appears to be chosen by God, when in fact we have installed the person in their position artificially. Installing a person into a developed ministry will often result in the “turtle on a fence post” syndrome (i.e. the turtle didn’t put himself there, someone else placed him there). We may harm both the church and the individual when we interfere with God’s election in this way. It makes more sense to offer young workers opportunities to follow up new people and form discipleship relationships than to offer them ready-made leadership roles like existing cell groups or home groups. An exception to this would be cases where a person has proven leadership in one venue, and we call on them to move to a new ministry. This was apparently what Barnabas did when he summoned Paul from Tarsus to Antioch.
	We should be very reluctant to remove ministry from a young Christian worker. Such removal could result in a subsequent failure to recognize God’s choice of the person for leadership because humans have disrupted his or her ministry every time it begins to flourish. There are important exceptions to this rule of thumb warranted in Scripture. The main exception would be the case where the young worker has disqualified him or herself by recent, serious, and objective sin. Scripture teaches the importance of moral character for Christian workers in passages like the requirements for deacons, (which, if violated could result in disqualification). Although young workers are not deacons, the principle would still apply to some extent, that anyone who serves the Lord needs to live up to minimal standards of Christian character. The the Bible provides examples of leaders removed from leadership due to sin or false teaching (1 Tim:1:20; 3 John 9,10). But these passages indicate that such removal should involve serious sin, not minor slip-ups. We would assume the same thing with young workers–they should not be removed from ministry because of minor slip-ups. All the passages warning against hypocrisy also imply that those trying to lead others, should be doing what they preach to a large extent. (Luke 12:1) “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”
	Whether someone is removed from leadership for disciplinary reasons or removes himself for other reasons, this could be an indication that God has not elected the person for leadership at this time. For this reason, we would not restore one who has been removed from leadership back to leadership unless the signs of divine election are again evident. This usually means the person has returned to the beginning stages of ministry and re-built their following. An exception to this might be situations where leaders have temporarily stepped down due to situations judged to be either outside their control, or unimportant.
	Only leaders whose ministry is blessed by God are considered for advancement to higher levels of ministry. If we err in putting in leaders whom God has not chosen for that role, we do better to make such errors at lower levels of leadership rather than higher levels.
	The notion that leaders are chosen by God strongly implies favoring indigenous leadership to imported leadership. Leaders imported from another group cannot be realistically affirmed by the local members and leaders, unless they know those in the former location relatively well. Such imported leaders usually have to depend on external credentials or hearsay for their legitimacy. Although we see the example of Barnabas bringing Paul in from Tarsus to Antioch, Barnabas had personal knowledge of Paul and his ability. Paul had also planted more than one church in Syria and Cilicia before Barnabas came for him. (Acts. 15:36,41)

Even with these principles, the business of determining God’s calling remains subjective. We are often reduced to guesswork when naming leaders, because there are so many variables involved. We usually are faced with compromise in at least some areas with every leader we recognize. Pray often that God will clearly indicate his choices for leadership.

Filed under: Uncategorized by Dennis McCallum
No Comments »

Read earlier comments in
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Collins on Intelligent Design

Collins’ assumption that scientists would never ignore or marginalize a new view, just because it’s based on theistic assumptions seems quite naïve to me. Why would scientists be any different than other humans? While they may like formulating new theories, adopting a position that would lead to their own marginalization is not likely.

Collins disqualifies ID as science because “A viable scientific theory predicts other findings and suggests approaches for further experimental verification.” But “ID’s proposal of the intervention of supernatural forces to account for complex multi-component biological entities is a scientific dead end. Outside of the development of a time machine, verification of the ID theory seems profoundly unlikely.”13 I think this criticism fails for more than one reason.

First, macroevolution (as I have defined it above) suffers the same criticism as ID. It prescribes no future approach for experimental verification. Experimental verification of natural selection or of genetic mutation is not the same as verification for macroevolution. Faith in macroevolution rests entirely on interpretation of existing data and has never been validated experimentally, or observed.

Second, while we would have to go back in a time machine to verify ID, we would also need one to validate macroevolution. Collins fails to see that believing in a process that has immense gaps in the fossil record, and no explanation for how it began in the first place is no better than believing in a far more plausible explanation, such as intervention by a designer.

I thought his call for ID to give a mechanism for how the intelligence gets into the design was unrealistic.14 This would be nothing but speculation at best. Any number of possibilities could be suggested, but these would probably only be used to ridicule the position. ID is primarily a critique of a pure Darwinian explanation for nature. Collins seems to imply that ID is in the same category as young earthers, but most are in fact Darwinists within limits. The material I have seen is arguing that Darwin’s theory is inadequate to explain all transitions. Most do not deny Darwinian principles across the board.

His arguments that current design in humans is imperfect and flawed, thus making it unlikely they come from God, are very familiar arguments found in enlightenment writings – Darwin, Hume, and others advanced these same arguments, and they have been answered satisfactorily.15 I was surprised to see a theist using these well-known atheistic arguments.

I thought his rejection of Behe’s flagellum argument was unconvincing and rhetorically loaded. He throws in qualifiers like “presumably” such and so could have happened, and admits “we are far from filling in the whole picture (if we ever can),” but on these bases, he concludes “Recent research has fundamentally undercut this [ID] position.”16 The research he mentions did nothing more than suggest a highly speculative possibility without observable backing [that flagella could have been borrowed toxin injectors somehow converted to a completely different function]. How does this fundamentally undercut anything? I thought it highly questionable that an organelle used to inject toxin into other bacteria would spontaneously begin to spin as a means of motility, and thereafter be reproduced for that purpose. I’m sure Behe et al. would point out that this transition would have to happen for all parts of the flagellum in a very short time in order to bestow any enhanced survivability. I can’t believe Collins thinks the matter is closed based on this speculation.

I have never felt that the flagellum and related arguments were the most persuasive part of ID (their work on inorganic evolution is far more convincing, since the mechanisms of mutation and selection are not available as an explanation). But I did not feel that mere resemblance to amino acid sequences in a somewhat similar organelle that had a completely different function could be called “fundamentally undercutting” the flagellum argument.

He also characterizes irreducible complexity as the foundation for ID, and that is inaccurate. That is only one argument use by the group, and in my mind, it is one of the least convincing. The recent discovery that bacteria and viruses can adopt and assimilate loose strands of inter-cellular DNA into their own DNA (not mentioned by Collins) could raise problems for this theory as well.17

He completely fails to deal with their much more substantial work in inorganic evolution. This is a critical shortcoming in his critique. He also fails to deal with Dembski’s analysis of what constitutes evidence of design in nature.

Collins includes a theological critique centering again on the ‘God of the gaps’ complaint dealt with earlier, and a specious claim that ID pictures an incompetent God who needs to intervene periodically to “correct” his shortcomings in previous creation. Neither of these was convincing.
The reasons for progressive creation would not need to be correcting errors or deficiencies. Anyone who has added to his garden during successive years understands why the creative work done last year may be supplemented without any suggestion that the previous work was mistaken. The pleasure of creating is reason enough for a creative being to act. For all we know, progressive acts of creation may have been appropriate because conditions were developing on the planet during long intervals that made further advances possible. There could be other reasons. This critique is an interpretation loaded with negative assumptions not based on any evidence. It is also possible that natural selection and mutation are incapable of developing beyond certain inherent limits.

Collins is completely negative about ID. He predicts it is a ship headed for the bottom of the ocean.18 I thought he gave no adequate basis for this caustic assessment. Young people in our church have supplied me with evidence that in recent months, weblogs and other groups discussing science and Christianity have suddenly shifted from favoring ID to declaring it now “disproven,” that “it sucks,” and “is stupid.” I think Collins’ very popular book is having a dramatic but unwarranted impact.

Next time: Collins’ “Biologos” theory

13. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 187.

14. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 187, 188,

15. Gleason Archer, Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974) on Genesis.

16. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 192.

17. Laurie Garrett, The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases In a World Out of Balance, (New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994).

18. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 195.

Filed under: Uncategorized by Dennis McCallum
No Comments »