prayeramedic.com » Church

The Smallest Church in America

Dan — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 03:46:04 +0000

Recently I visited the smallest church in America. Yes, I’m being serious. Here’s a few more shots I took:

And here’s inside the building:

It’s actually even smaller than it looks in the photos. I was driving down a backwoods highway in Georgia and saw the sign and had to stop. I was really surprised that the door was open and candles were lit inside (then again, it was a Sunday evening when I stopped by). It was littered with religious symbols and artifacts and smelled like musty carpet. Yet still, there it was, open to all.

I know this is more or less a tourist attraction, not really a genuine attempt to reach out into the community, but I couldn’t help but begin to think. In the comments on a recent post about filling the pews with false converts, Daniel Cosby wrote:

“No one builds a building and fills it with seats, so it can sit empty…”

That’s a simple and yet profound point. An institutional church must, by necessity, focus on filling the pews. Anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows that I strongly feel that we cannot judge the church’s success by numbers. Instead, I ask this question: Are you making disciples who make other disciples? But recently a pastor (who happens to be very into the church growth movement) pointed out to me that this is a sort of logical conundrum: don’t measure church progress numerically; but if you are making disciples, your numbers will grow. His argument was that measuring disciple-making disciples is a numerical metric for success. I had to think about it for awhile, but now I’ve been able to clarify my thoughts, and I beg to differ.

The Christian faith is actually filled with these sorts of conundrums. A perfect example is the role good works play in our walk as a believer. Our personal works contribute nothing to our salvation, but the Bible says that we will recognize genuine believers by their fruit. We are not saved by obedience to the Law, but if we continually disobey and disregard God’s Law, the Bible says that we are not saved. James points out that if a man claims to have faith but does no good works, his faith cannot save him (James 2:14, 17). Yet the Apostle Paul continually makes it clear that Christ alone saves us apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). The answer lies in our focus and motivation.

Do we do good works in order to earn our salvation? No! That would be futile. We do them because good works become natural for us when we become new creatures in Jesus Christ. Does a tree bear fruit in order to continue being a tree? No! A tree bears fruit by nature, that is its purpose. So also “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10).

In the same way, the biblical believer makes disciples in order to expand God’s kingdom and out of heartfelt gratitude for what God has done for him and for all mankind. His aim is not to build or grow a local organization, his goal is to build the global organism of Christ’s Body.

The Smallest Church in America is only judging its size by its building dimensions and attendance, not by the metric of Christ’s Body, for She is one Church, and one Bride. Granted, on occasion numbers are noted in the New Testament (such as how 3,000 people were baptized on the day of Pentecost), but the focus never shifted from Christ and His kingdom. The emphasis wasn’t about how Peter’s sermon attracted 3,000 people to the faith. The emphasis was on repentance and the forgiveness of sins being offered by Jesus Christ to 3,000 broken sinners who were literally “cut to the heart” by their sin (Acts 2:37-38).

I wish more people recognized that when we gather as believers, we gather with the Church universal. Jesus said in Matthew 18:20, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” Jesus Himself is present with those who gather in His name, and we are thus all gathered together in Him.

Instead we all tend to focus only on our local gathering of believers – and we begin to think in isolated terms. The Bible continually points us to Christ and His Body, the Church universal. One day we will all join in praise and worship of our God forever in heaven, but we can do so here as well….

Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped (Revelation 5:13-14).

Let’s go forth throughout this week thinking in collective terms about the Church universal, remembering that we worship a big God and that we are a part of a much larger organism, the Body of Christ. Sure, making disciples does mean more people, but learn to count them as additions to God’s kingdom, not to our own.

Here’s a few questions to ponder this week:

What does the architecture of a gathering place communicate to those who meet there?
What does the culture of our regular assembly communicate about how it measures growth?
Does focusing on the wrong metric for success produce bad/false results? How so?

The Church is failing…

Dan — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:40:56 +0000

I’m getting sick of always hearing about what the Church is doing wrong from people who offer no solutions other than to give up on it. The bottom line is, the Body of Christ isn’t going away – it is Christ’s Bride whom He loves and for whom He died. Whether She meets in houses, buildings, cathedrals, college campuses, coffee shops, or bars, She is Christ’s Beloved.

I’m really not one to talk since I used to join in the banter, although long ago I recognized the problem with how it’s Chic to Critique and that when we do so, we’re Critiquing His Bride. It’s not fair to critique without offering suggestions for improvement and becoming part of the solution. It’s easy to make pot shots from the sidelines, it’s a lot harder to work for effective, lasting change from the inside.

A lot of the complaints about the church stem from a misunderstanding of the distinction between the Church’s calling and the individual believers’ calling. Without this distinction, the church gets overwhelmed and overburdened with good ideas. I’ve heard people suggest that the Church should do all of these things:

Feed the homeless and build shelters
Help people find jobs
Offer parenting classes
Help people struggling with addiction
Support overseas missions and send missionaries
Begin mentoring programs
Offer free community healthcare clinics
Visit shut-ins and hospitalized
Build nursing homes or find families for elderly
Run a daycare
Offer bible studies and classes that accommodate everyone’s schedule
Reach out to people using Web 2.0 / social networking
Offer relevant, cutting edge worship music with talented musicians
Offer a strong youth program
Provide a community food pantry
Buy Christmas gifts for underprivileged children in the community
Offer specific life phase ministries (age, marital situation, parenting, hobbies, etc.)

Do you know what all of these have in common? They all require significant financial and/or human resources to develop and sustain! The funny thing is, many of the people who recommend that the Church do these things also don’t think the Church should have any hierarchy of leadership or organizational structure – nor a building from which to operate. Others want to see these things from their own local church, but they are not willing to contribute their time, talents, or money to support them. And that’s really not fair.

Nothing is wrong with any of these ideas, in fact I like many of them. But these are not the Church’s primary responsibilities. If we judge the Church by the above standards, She is failing miserably and She always will be. The Church cannot meet everyone’s needs.

Critics like to use the existence of a need as justification for the Church being a failure. For instance, if we have homeless people in the community, the Church is failing to care for them. But I would be willing to bet that a lot of things in most communities are actually better because the Church is offering some programs to help and is witnessing in that community. Do we assume that police officers are worthless because we still have crime or that parents are useless because kids do stupid things? NO! Why then do we assume that the existence of an unmet need is proof of the Church’s failure?

The other thing we forget is that individual believers do meet a lot of a communities’ needs simply by fulfilling the duties of their vocations. The Church is filled with healthcare providers who help the sick, social workers who help the underprivileged, emergency service providers who respond to community crises, teachers who educate children, and many more people who help communities and make godly changes in the world. But the Christian faith, more specifically the Church, is never credited with the daily actions of individual believers as they fulfill their vocations.

Most of the above-listed needs overlap with other social institutions. None of these are unique to the Church, that is, others can fulfill them. The Church does have one thing that is unique, however. This is something that NO ONE else can offer. The Church must meet people’s most vital need for the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Church primarily exists to preach the Gospel and to equip others to do the same. No one else has this message and no one else can equip others to share it.

So the next time you think of a great ministry that your local church should provide, offer to lead it and to develop the resources for it. Do a little research before making a suggestion, there may be reasons why it isn’t feasible to do something at that time. At the same time, you may find that there are many people interested in donating their time, talents and financial resources to meet a need in your community. As you develop the ministry, be sure that it also meets people’s greatest need for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Otherwise you’re just like any other social institution, and you’ll be failing at the very thing the Church is called to do.

Canceling church to do service projects

Dan — Mon, 24 May 2010 08:30:08 +0000

I’ve heard a lot about this lately. A church in St. Louis, MO recently canceled services in order to do community projects. Several people whose opinions I respect have mentioned the prospect of doing this lately, and several others whom I also respect have voiced strong opposition to this. Here’s a short video about this church event:

I guess a lot of this centers around your definition of “church” and “worship.” If Church is something we are, then wherever we go there is Christ’s Body. At the same time, what about those visitors who didn’t get to hear the Gospel that day? I’m not of the mindset that actions alone preach the Gospel, words are essential – specifically the Word of God.

If “worship” is something we do for God, then service projects are an appropriate substitute. But if worship is a place where the Church receives Christ’s gifts and is replenished for service, then what happened at this church in St. Louis is equivalent to sending starving people out to the fields to work.

Here are a few questions I have about this:

What about the visitors? Did they hear the Gospel? (Hearing the message is important, see Romans 10:17).
Did everyone have an opportunity to serve? What about the disabled, those with special needs, elderly, mothers with many children, etc.? Did they attend this event and if so, were they able to contribute in a meaningful way?
Why couldn’t service events be scheduled after the service, or over the weekend? Were people not willing to devote additional time to service projects?
What does this convey about this church’s theology of worship and why we gather?

Those are some questions to consider. I’d love to hear your responses. Please comment with your thoughts here or on Facebook. Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not?

For a great audio clip discussing this very issue check out this episode of Issues, Etc.

H/T: Cyberbrethren and Issues, Etc.

The customer isn’t right

Dan — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:00:28 +0000

I was listening to a podcast on Issues Etc. earlier this week and I was struck by a profound thought. The title of the podcast was “The Vocation of Minister.” I’d normally link directly to it but the site appears to be down as I’m writing this, nothing will load.

The guest speaker was talking about how the word minister means “servant,” but most churches today prefer to look to ministers as leaders or CEO’s, and ministers are all too happy to accept this role. The proper role of a minister is that of a servant, and his chief task is to “administer” what God has given, His gifts.

The guest speaker then said this:

“We approach [the vocation of the minister] as a social issue, we look at what the people want. Let’s look at the word ministry. There’s an old saying… ‘The customer is always right.’ The customer knows what he wants and if you’re going to serve the customer, you better give him what he wants or you’re not going to do business with him. That’s precisely wrong when it comes to the church, because the customer is always wrong. And God is always right.

In other words, we must approach the vocation of the minister theologically (not socially). A minister of God must often preach God’s Law and His Gospel to people who don’t want any part of it. Often people don’t realize the depth of their sinfulness (including me), and they must hear God’s Law. Other times the Law has done its work and people have been cut to the heart, then they need to hear the Gospel. The customer (not a good term but I’m using it simply to make a point) is always wrong. He doesn’t want what he really needs. I am so often guilty of this. I often want authenticity, community, and whatever – but what I really need is the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. These other things are secondary to this primary need.

It is too easy to lose sight of Christ as the focal point of our churches when we operate with the assumption that the folks in the pews are right. That’s how we get mega-churches that acquiesce to, rather than transform, culture. Give the people what they want and you will grow numerically, but that’s not how ministry progress ought to be measured.

I’m giving up for Lent

Dan — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:30:29 +0000

Today is the first day of Lent, a 40 day season of the historical church year leading up to Easter, also metaphorically corresponding to the 40 days Jesus was tempted while fasting in the desert. Originally, Lent was a period of intense fasting and prayer that believers went through prior to being baptized at the Easter Vigil. It then became a period where believers abstained from eating meat and concentrated on prayer. Today many Orthodox and Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays (hence why there are so many “Fish Fry’s” on Fridays and fish specials during this time of year). Other evangelical traditions encourage people to give something up for Lent, in order to focus on scripture and prayer.

The most popular thing people are giving up for Lent this year is Facebook. And then of course there is the old joke, “I’m giving up giving something up for Lent.”

Me personally, I’m giving up for Lent. I’m going to stop trying to base my spirituality on my own performance. I’m going to try to stop relying on myself to obtain victory over sin in my life. I’m simply going to give up, and give it all over to Christ. And hopefully I make this a life-long change.

What are you giving up for Lent?

Do you celebrate Easter?

Marriage is Hard Work

Dan — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:58:17 +0000

I read a great post the other day on Samantha Krieger’s blog entitled “Marriage: Built to Last.” I wrote a comment that essentially became a post, so I wanted to share it.

“Marriage is hard work.” Wow, is it. Tiffany and I just celebrated three years of marriage and while it is rewarding, it has not been without some HARD work. My biggest advice to newlyweds or those considering marriage: communication skills. Yeah, yeah, everyone says that. Blah blah blah. I didn’t listen, either. Men and women truly do communicate in drastically different ways. It’s fine once you begin to learn how to speak and understand the other partner’s language, but it takes time, trial and error.

And I certainly had to come to grip with how imperfect I am. Marriage takes you to the next step of adult maturity: learning to think in terms of “we” not “I.” I think this comes a little easier for women, but I could be wrong. For me it is still a struggle. Marriage is not two separate lives becoming one in a 50/50 relationship, like everyone says. It’s two lives re-orienting on one journey, side by side, giving everything: 100/100.

But most importantly, it teaches us about Jesus. Jesus didn’t use marriage as an analogy for no reason. The Church is His bride, a slightly more comfortable image for women perhaps, but something about which both genders have a lot to learn. Jesus has “put His Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come” (2 Corinthians 1:22).

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:13-14).

This is the imagery I’ve had on my mind most recently: the Holy Spirit is our engagement ring. He has sealed us in Christ as His bride-to-be, proposing to us on the cross through our baptism. As we learn to love another human being in all of her imperfection, we see how Christ can love us. It’s humbling.

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. . . . This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband” (Ephesians 5:25-28, 33).

The Church, His Bride, is presented to Him through the Holy Spirit, having been cleansed “by the washing with water through the word” (baptism) and given the most radiant wedding dress in all creation. What a glorious marriage feast it will be!

Meanwhile we receive a small foretaste of the feast to come, daily lessons of learning to love unconditionally. And learning to receive unconditional love. Both can be painful, and both take work. And submission. Submit to Christ, He has given everything for you. Although free, it was not cheap.

Fighting man or his methods?

Dan — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:51:21 +0000

This post is the product of a series of conversations with Mike Baker and a recent post by Daniel and Heather Cosby entitled “Demolition of the Heart…”. In Daniel and Heather’s post, they wrote:

“Over the last year or two, we have spent considerable energy trying to expose and dismantle the beliefs surrounding this worldly-derived system which identifies itself as “the Church”. To a large degree, this has been driven by the assumption that it is this system which is holding so many people back from experiencing true, authentic, unfettered Life. . . .

But these assumptions have proven to be pretty short-sighted. They forget what lies at the core of everything that diverges from God’s intentions. They neglect the underlying reality of sin. . . .

While it is true that so many of the practices embraced by religious legalism today were borrowed from a combination of pagan influences and Old Testament Law, it is also true that these practices are adopted and preserved essentially because they provide an appealing alternative to simply finding oneself standing naked and condemned before a Holy God. They are safe. They are convenient. They appeal to our flesh. And though they do provide a platform on which pride and self-reliance can flourish, they are not the cause of these ugly human traits. They are a symptom, but not the disease, a manifestation of what lies at the root, an unintended showcase of our fallen nature, which always tends to value ingenuity over dependence, and personal achievement over brokenness…

If we simply focus on knocking down the religious edifices that have been built by those who would trust human wisdom more than God’s, we can easily ignore the reasons why these systems were ever formed at all… We can strive to live as “organically” as possible, and yet in our hearts be just as cold and dead as the bricks in the church buildings we’ve left…

Is it the institutions which enslave people, or is it sin itself?“

I think that is a profound question, and one I’ve been considering a lot lately. Perhaps the issues we have with the institutional church can’t be resolved by merely a new approach. Perhaps the issues are there because of our sinful nature, regardless of our methodical approach to church (or deconstruction of it)? This can be seen clearly in the history of modern day Methodism (hence the name “Methodist”).

John Wesley emphasized a conversion experience and personal holiness and began making many practical reforms to the way church was done, especially how people lived throughout the week and interacted with other believers. He was discontent with the apathy and dead tradition he saw all around him. Wesley never intended to invent a new church, he merely formed small groups known as “United Societies.” It didn’t take long for the Church of England to ban them from speaking in any pulpits, so John Wesley and his brother Charles soon began preaching in homes and other non-church settings. Today Methodism is not much different in practice than most mainstream evangelical denominations, nor is it faring any better. Clearly a new “method” didn’t help – human nature prevails.

Perhaps the reasons we tend to form traditions and hierarchy are because of embedded sin, not because our initial approach was bad. This is really making me reconsider how I approach a lot of issues concerning church practice. I still think things could be a lot better than they are, but I’m becoming much more forgiving of many different traditions and how they came to be.

What do you think? Are we just fighting man and his sinful nature, or are we legitimately fighting corrupt man-made methods? Which is it: fighting man or his methods?

Gifts for visitors: what are you conveying?

Dan — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:37:24 +0000

Yesterday Tiffany and I visited yet another church. It was fairly nice, but like most churches, it just struck us as being very fake, it didn’t feel authentic. The worship leader talks a lot like a stoned hippie: “Let’s just focus on the King this morning…”, “Can you feel the Spirit as we magnify our God?” Not that these statements are wrong, but the way he said them sounded so fake to us. Creating an emotional atmosphere with music does not constitute worship, the way we live our lives on Monday is how we worship God.

The church gave us a CD of their worship band as a gift for visiting, along with a packet about their church. I started thinking about this later in the day. What do the gifts churches give to visitors communicate to them about the church’s priorities?

For instance, this church had very talented musicians leading worship. They gave us a worship CD and a packet. The message is: we have a great praise band, also look at all the awesome activities and programs we have at our church!

From a marketing standpoint, what you give visitors communicates your priorities. Let’s go through a few common items churches give visitors and discuss what that might convey:

Coffee Mug – This is the number one visitor’s gift from my experience. Perhaps this conveys that the church values fellowship.
Worship CD – “We have an awesome praise band!”
Flowers – “We hope you’re flattered by our kindness.”
Packet of Information – This is self-promotion. Look at everything WE have to offer you! “This is why you should come to OUR church.”

Here’s my point. Shouldn’t church be all about Jesus Christ? If so, isn’t it far more important that I ensure my visitor leaves having heard the Gospel? What if my visitor doesn’t own a Bible or know what kind of Bible to get? What if my visitor has urgent prayer needs? Does my visitor need the pastor’s counsel in an important life issue? Do they simply need someone to talk to?

Maybe instead of giving visitors coffee mugs that end up in neighborhood rummage sales or town landfills within a few weeks, churches should give each visitor a Gospel tract. Maybe visitors should be told that even if they never come back to our church, we want to make sure they know who Jesus Christ is and that this church is all about Him. Maybe we should ask if they own a Bible. Maybe we should offer to pray for and/or with them. Maybe we should ask if they’d like to speak with the pastor. Just some thoughts. . . .

I’m not saying telling visitors about your church is wrong, but if Jesus Christ truly is the central focus of your church then your first priority should be sharing Him, not explaining your distinctives.

Also, if you want to see a short, humorous video that shows how most churches appear to visitors, watch What if Starbucks marketed like a church?

I ate at Houlihan’s… it reminded me of church

Dan — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:52:54 +0000

Tiffany and I (Dan) ate at a local restaurant called Houlihan’s the other day, and as I sat there waiting for the check, I realized that Houlihan’s was a lot like a typical American church. Let me walk you through the similarities.

The Experience
Before going there, I checked out the website to see the menu. I always view church’s websites before attending as well, to see what it might be like (and to see if the church is culturally relevant enough to publish a somewhat informative website). Anyways, the Houlihan’s website was really flashy and had some progressive music playing (see for yourself). It seemed pretty cool.

Upon arriving, the atmosphere was fairly trendy: they had metal covers on their menus, a neat paint/color scheme, progressive music playing, and the staff wore all black and looked stylish. Despite the artificial atmosphere, the wait staff wasn’t all that good, the glasses were dirty, and the food was average. It was a let-down. I used to feel this way a lot when I attended new churches. They would have a cool atmosphere, but the same old attitudes and ways of doing things (just like in the Starbucks church video, watch it if you haven’t seen it yet!).

What They Say About Themselves
Later, after reflecting on this. I decided to revisit their website and read the “About Us” page. There were some startling similarities with how churches present themselves. Let’s go through some of the statements they make about themselves and compare it to how churches portray themselves:

In 1972, Houlihan’s first opened its doors in Kansas City with a progressive, eclectic menu and energetic bar scene. Ferns hung throughout, artifacts cluttered the walls and tapestries made by San Francisco hippies formed the ceiling. Caviar burgers, roasted duck, foot-long hot dogs and fresh carrot juice were just a few original menu items so ahead for its time. It was hot.

Just as Houlihan’s opened in the early 70′s with an eclectic and energetic atmosphere, so too many churches found their origin in the “Jesus Movement” of the 60′s and 70′s and used charisma and popular culture to draw in crowds. Notice the goal here is to cater to the consumer, not to conform the consumer to a greater ideal. In many ways churches today have it as their goal to meet peoples’ needs, rather than to conform them to the image of Christ (even when it’s not popular to do so).

Before long, there were a lot of ‘casual dining’ restaurants opening and call us crazy, but they looked a whole lot like us. We tried to be flattered. Some grew really big, and by the ’90s, the whole ‘casual dining’ landscape was pretty me-too. Instead of watching the consumer, the industry seemed more worried about what competitors were doing. Casual dining lost its way, and in doing so lost its edge.

Houlihan’s makes a good observation here, they recognized that not only had the casual dining industry lost touch with the consumer, but it also became self-absorbed and chased after competition relentlessly. Over the last few decades, churches have also been racing to be the biggest, most “relevant,” have the best worship band, and draw the largest crowds. They have forgotten that the true focus is Christ, not having better preaching than the mega-church on the other side of town.

Fast forward to 2002. That’s when we had our ‘Aha!’ moment (as Oprah would say). New leadership, new ideas, new inspiration. We completely re-imagined ourselves, and got back in touch with the consumer. New menus. New plates. New building design, new soundtrack. Stylish uniforms. And a modern, warm restaurant design with an open kitchen and prominent bar. Today, our company is built entirely around what the progressive consumer seeks in a restaurant + bar experience. And we plan to keep it that way.

Forget ‘casual dining.’ That’s an industry term so out of touch with how consumers eat and drink today. For premium quality and style; fare that’s at times familiar and other times adventurous and a laid-back modern setting, Houlihan’s is a true original.

Notice two things: 1) All of the changes involved the external environment, not any real internal change on the parts of the staff; 2) Above and beyond merely stating the casual dining industry has gotten out of touch with the consumer, Houlihan’s believes entirely new terms need to be employed to describe their “original” setting, rendering the “old” terms obsolete and “out of touch.”

Isn’t this also the only real change many churches have made – external only? In an attempt to make church all about the people in the pews (rather than keeping its sole focus on Christ), it has tried to create an experience that will meet the Christians’ needs for belonging and adventure, among many other things. The problem is, these needs can only be met in Christ! The church will never be able to meet all of peoples’ needs, the local bar or the person’s family can do that much better – but the Church can show the person the only thing that will truly meet their needs: Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Also, just as Houlihan’s has sought to employ new terms, the church is filled with new terms such as “missional,” “relevant,” “seeker-sensitive,” etc. Now those terms are being attacked as out of touch, and new terms are emerging such as “post-missional,” “beyond relevance,” “seeker-friendly,” “post-denominational,” etc. Despite the terms, the church still looks and feels the same, and it’s still doing things the exact same away (in many instances it is doing them worse than it did before).

Conclusion
Just as my Houlihan’s experience was blah and average, my experience with many churches is the same. The church can’t compete with Satan’s progressive culture, nor should it try. The church needs to stand against the grain of culture and challenge it to embrace Jesus Christ. Rather than adapting to culture, the Church should transform culture. Only Jesus Christ can do this, not a new movement, program, or committee.

What is the Christian Church?

Dan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:39:37 +0000

Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church, recently studied Acts 2 to come up with a definition of what constitutes a Christian Church. This is what he came up with:

The local church is a community of regenerated believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord. In obedience to Scripture they organize under qualified leadership, gather regularly for preaching and worship, observe the biblical sacraments of baptism and communion, are unified by the Spirit, are disciplined for holiness, and scatter to fulfill the great commandment and the great commission as missionaries to the world for God’s glory and their joy.

I think he hit the nail on the head. Having read Mars Hill’s doctrinal statement, I was very surprised that he chose to use the word “sacraments” rather than “ordinances” or “testimonies” to refer to Baptism and Holy Communion.

I like calling the sacraments/ordinances “grace-gifts,” but that’s just a personal preference. I do believe they are powerful means of grace through which we receive Christ’s grace and forgiveness.

What do you think? Did Driscoll forget anything that is crucial to the Church? What did you like about his definition? What did you not like?