More thoughts on worship

So the new vision statement at my church is, you may recall, "A people for Christ, for the kingdom, and for the world." And in the first installment of a 5-sermon series intended to "unpack" this statement, our pastor focused first of all on all-out worship as a characteristic of such a people.

Now, I've been saying on all along that modern evangelical Christianity is losing its Christ-centeredness. In a nutshell, we have decided not to talk about sin as sin, and therefore we do not convey an accurate and profound understanding of the human condition. In fact, much of the time we gloss all this over, and in doing so, the cross itself and the doctrine of justification (sorry, I've stopped trying to "winsomely" avoid using such terms) gets shunted aside as no longer quite serving the needs of the moment. With the human condition misunderstood, and the cross thus "deconstructed," the very ministry of Jesus is narrowed and misunderstood.

With these thoughts in mind, I want to go back to the matter of worship. If we combine these two matters -- 1) the imperative to worship the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and 2) the centrality of the cross to all matters of faith and understanding -- then we see that the cross (and the justification it bought for us) becomes the indicative upon which the imperative to worship is based. We worship God, in other words, because Jesus saved us from our sins.

If, on the other hand, we focus on worship while shunting the cross aside, we will probably focus instead on ourselves (since there must, there will always be, something in the focus). We will begin to talk and sing about ourselves worshiping, will begin to describe attitudes of worship in terms of our fervor, rather than in terms of what God has done in Christ. We will even speak routinely of worship without reference to Jesus at all, or routinely interchanging the name of Jesus with that of God in a blurring of the trinitarian persons.

But back to the sermon last week. Under the heading of worship, our pastor spoke among other things of being a people who "celebrate Christ." He cited 1 Peter 1:8, and then the passage in 2 Samuel in which David says to the chiding Michal, "...I will become even more undignified than this..." Also, he cited Ps. 100:1-3, not stopping to show what Christ had to do with either of these passages.

So, I was a little disappointed about this. Not angry, not disgruntled, not terribly put-out, but a little disappointed. It was a missed opportunity. If I were going to speak about celebrating Christ, I might speak of his supremacy in all things, about his being the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I might note Hebrews 10:10, or Romans 3:21-26, or Philippians 2:1-11, or especially Colossians 1:15-23. I would go to Christ's upper room talk with his disciples ("for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God"). Perhaps you can think of a few dozen more passages that show the worthiness of Christ, or the centrality of the cross for our worship.

The point. Yes, let us celebrate Jesus. But we will never come close to understanding his worthiness until we understand the depths of our own unworthiness. If it was necessary that Jesus go to the cross for sinful men, that is then the fundamental basis of all our celebration. Our joy is based on nothing less.

Christians, not Pneumians

This is now the fifth post in a series on my church's new "mission and vision." The first 4 posts are here, here, here, and here.

I should note right away that this is not going to be an exercise in sermon-nitpicking. I am not going to take up the content of these sermons in any great detail, but simply to ask a question of great importance to me: is Christ in his rightful place at the center, as the "main thing," or has he been displaced by other, lesser lights? Do I find in these messages a clear expression of the central importance of Christ and him crucified, as I would have hoped? Or, do I find the cross shunted aside for other preferences?

In this latest sermon, my pastor expressed the first two of a promised ten items which he says are encompassed within his vision statement for the church, "A people for Christ, for the kingdom, and for the world."

These first 2 items are:

• we will be a people who worship God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
• we will be a people experiencing Christ's rule and reign both personally and corporately.

There is nothing here that I wouldn't eagerly accept and extol. But the question that I want to ask is, where then does the cross of Christ stand in relation to these things? In his explanation for the first item above, my pastor emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit in our worship. He referenced, among other verses, Eph. 5:18-19, 1 Peter 1:8, 2Samuel 6:21b-22a, and Ps. 100:1-3. As the Ephesians quote would indicate, the premium here is on the filling of the Holy Spirit. As many commentators have noted, the sense of the verb in that passage is, "be being filled with the Holy Spirit," indicating an ongoing experience of filling. So then: how does this "being filled" relate to the preaching of the cross that in other places Paul so pointedly emphasized?

I'm not sure that I'm ready to give an answer to that question just yet, but I want to share something I found over at C.J. Mahaney's blog that seems quite relevant. Mahaney is quoting Graham Cole's He Who Gives Life: the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

He [the Holy Spirit] has not come . . . to thematize himself but Christ (John 14–16). Christology is at the center, not pneumatology.

A great Christian leader of an earlier century, Bishop J.C. Ryle, suggested that the gospel may be spoiled in a number of ways.…We can spoil the gospel when the NT sense of proportion is lost and pneumatology becomes our primary emphasis rather than Christology. The idea in some charismatic circles, for example, that "the major compass point for moving ahead in active ministry" is not "the cross" but "charisma" is extremely troubling. (pp. 274–275)

C.J. later adds the following quote from the same book:

The magnificence of the Spirit lies in this self-effacement or divine selflessness. For this reason believers are rightly called “Christians” not “Pneumians.” (p. 284)

I will be returning to this subject in the next couple of posts, but I want to leave you with one more quotation. This one comes from a book called A Man in Christ, by the Scottish theologian, James S. Stewart (written back in the 1930s). I've been browsing this book lately, reading bits and pieces, and yesterday I came upon the following comment concerning the doctrine of justification, which of course is integrally related to the cross:

Even among Christians the attempt to develop Christian graces (which are the circumference of religion) without having first faced up to the question of self-surrender and rightness with God (which is religion's centre) is not unknown: and as long as this is so, Paul's doctrine of justification, so far from being an obsolete survival of merely historical and antiquarian interest, will remain a living word of God, challenging and convincing and convicting, and mighty to save.

I will have more to say on these matters in the coming days. Bear with me please as I ruminate!

[Note: also relevant (and timely) is a post called Christ-free substitutes over at Anti-itch Meditation. HT: Milton, as usual.]

Mission and Vision . . . so far

I want to spend a few moments summing up the "mission and vision" series of posts so far. But before doing so, I want to snip a quote from C. J. Mahaney's latest post (Cross Centered Books) over at his brand spankin' new blog:

We awaken each day with a tendency to forget that which is most important: the gospel. All of us should assume this tendency and be aware of this tendency. Because of the Fall and due to the effects of remaining sin, we have a daily tendency and temptation to forget stuff in general and to forget that which is most important in particular.

It took about 15 of my first 17 years as a Christian to realize that this was a simple truth about us all and to begin to pattern my reading, my prayer, and my devotional time around this fact. It also became that which I looked for, sought after, hungered for, in all preaching. You can call it cross-centered, gospel-centered, Christ-centered--these are all useful terms, and they all represent a way of seeing, a way of living, and a way of understanding that in my opinion jibes with the New Testament.

But focusing on one thing causes you to look askance at others. Some things stand very near to Calvary in their importance, so that focusing on the cross brings these things into focus as well (think of the whole "tagcloud" of keywords that hover around the concepts justification and sanctification, for example), while other things sort of move to the periphery. Preaching and praxis that is void of the cross is simply a lapse and a failure, and it leaves me cold, hungry, and sometimes a little irritated. As my wife likes to say, "Just give me Jesus."

Any time I listen to a sermon I go into the experience with one question uppermost in my mind. Where is the gospel in this message? Where does Christ shine forth, rising like the Day Star in our hearts even as we listen to mortal speech?

But what I have found among church-goers is a deep distrust of any response to a sermon that is not all-out enthusiastic. As if the only correct response to the sermon must be, "Wasn't that incredible?" In my opinion, we don't know how to think about sermons. That is, we don't know how to test them, question them, subject them to thoughtful consideration, or apply Bible standards to them. We mistrust such practices as divisive. Criticism is a dirty word.

My first church after getting saved, a very Lutheran assembly, was racked by division, with charges and counter-charges, threats, name-calling, and pastorally pronounced anathemas filling the air. So I do understand the danger of divisiveness. I have seen rampant criticism in the church that was essentially self-centered and schismatic in nature. I have seen the harm it can do. Ever since, I have been determined to avoid that sort of thing like the hellish plague that it is.

But the alternative is not to unthinkingly applaud everything that goes on in your church. If that were so, we should remove all references to "discernment" from our Bibles.

Getting back to the "mission and vision" series of sermons at my church: since these messages express what my church leadership deems to be of central importance, in fact, to be definitive of ourselves as a church, this series is an opportunity for me to discern once and for all whether my own view of things lines up with my church's view. I have been very dissatisfied with the preaching-focus there for some time, but perhaps this "recalibration," as my pastor calls it, will be in fact a refocusing on "that which is most important: the gospel." If so, I'll join the celebration with a glad and eager heart.

But for now I move forward as one who listens, as one who, yes, thinks critically, as one who questions, and as one who hungers for the gospel. As I continue this series, I will be asking the key question: where is the cross in all this? Where is the gospel? Where is Jesus?

[The series so far: first, second, third. Next post in the series should come by Tuesday.]

The Gospel is an Open Vision: Part 3 in the Mission and Vision Series

I'm continuing now with my series of posts on my church's new mission and vision statements, but first a brief explanatory interjection is needed.

I just wanted to mention that these posts represent my own effort to engage intellectually with this "recalibration" of the church's mission and vision, in order to find out more clearly just what I think of it. I have no wish to be argumentative or hyper-critical, but I do want to be honest. I am actually encouraged by this "recalibration" process, because as my pastor enunciates his vision for the church, it will perhaps clarify and confirm my own inklings, and also disconfirm others. In the end, I will know my own church better, and know where I myself stand.

So, all this having been said, on to the new "vision statement" of the church:

To be a people for Christ, for the kingdom, and for the world.

My thoughts: first off, I really don't understand the difference between a mission statement and a vision statement. Note that this vision statement is a lot more concise than the mission statement, having very much the quality of a campaign slogan. On the other hand, the statement is simple and direct, puts Christ first, reminds us that our purpose is wrapped up closely with the kingdom that Christ himself inaugurated, and in its final clause ("for the world") works against separatist tendencies. We are, in a real sense, implementers of God's redemptive purpose for the world.

So, for what it's worth, the vision statement is fine with me. But the real question may be, just what is it worth? My pastor has promised to deal with ten specific implications of this statement in the next five sermons. I'm looking forward to it.

A note about one of the verses that my pastor referred to in this presentation of the new vision statement. That is, of course, Prov. 29:18.

Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.

Look, I've got nothing against "vision casting" (notwithstanding the interesting and somewhat less sanguine attitude expressed at Anti-Itch Medication), but it should probably be kept in mind that God is the great vision-caster. Note that the above verse closely connects "prophetic vision" with law-keeping. Then remember that Jesus Christ is our law-fulfiller. Of this verse the great Matthew Henry said,

How bare does a place look without Bibles and ministers! and what an easy prey is it to the enemy of souls! That gospel is an open vision, which holds forth Christ, which humbles the sinner and exalts the Saviour, which promotes holiness in the life and conversation: and these are precious truths to keep the soul alive, and prevent it from perishing.

I repeat: "the gospel is an open vision." And I'm satisfied with that.

[BTW, the first post in this series is here, and the second here.]

Mission and Vision (part 2)

Two weeks ago my pastor announced a new mission and vision for our church, and informed us that he would spend six or seven Sundays "unpacking" this for the congregation. For those interested, my church is here, and the first two sermons can be found here. I thought I'd track with these sermons here at In the Clearing, working out my own thoughts and perhaps soliciting some of yours.

Without further ado, here's the new mission statement for the church:

A passionate, Spirit-empowered community, who follow Jesus, celebrate God and expect his presence. We equip each other to serve and impact our neighborhood and the world.

My thoughts: first of all, I'm not sure how much mission-statements matter in the long run. I guess they matter only as much as we want them to. In some way they can serve as a giant organizational "post-it note of the mind," something to which one can look back often and check oneself against. But it should be said that, if this is to be its purpose, then it had better be spot-on. It had better be a fundamentally Biblical mission, grounded firmly and clearly on the core or essence of the New Testament's "mission" for the church.

My first reaction to this mission statement is that it shows the signs of trying to be a catch-all for all the buzzwords of the prevailing church zeitgeist. You have here passion, community, celebration, impact, all in one statement! As such, it seems a little dispersed and unfocused to me, a compendium more than a mission-statement. What after all is the main thing here? What is the fundamental reason for our church's being--as far as that can be ascertained from this statement?

Shall we assume that the most important thing must be that which comes first? Maybe "passionate" is given first place because it is of first importance. But passion is a tricky thing. Passionate about what? I guess I'm all for passion, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that passion about our mission is not important, but here we have passion extolled even before the mission is clearly stated. I have seen much passion expended on many misguided causes, inside and outside the church. To be quite honest, I think if I focus on the right things, passion will take care of itself. My mission is my mission, and if that mission is aligned with the purpose of God for me, for my family, and for my church, it's all the more likely that passion will accompany my pursuit of that mission.

The mission statement proceeds to collect several other descriptors, all of them commendable. Spirit-empowered, yes, that's fine (we are, after all, a Vineyard church). "Celebrate God." "Expect his presence." "Equip." "Serve." "Impact." All these are fine words, fine goals, I suppose, but again I ask, what's central here? What's the linchpin, the one thing upon which the life of the church hinges. The one thing, in other words, that makes ours a "Christian" church?

As a comparison, here's another mission statement. In fact, it's our church's own previous mission statement.

We at the Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Greater Portland are a community of people committed to loving God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and loving our neighbor as ourselves. We want each person to know Jesus Christ personally and have the opportunity to grow to their full potential in Him. We are also committed to reaching out to the wider community, and the wider world, around us with the transforming power of God’s love.

One difference I quickly notice is the presence of an actual Scriptural mission statement right at the start. I also notice that the old statement seems to at least suggest a certain correspondence, if only loosely, with the great commission that Jesus himself gave to his disciples before ascending.

Another difference: where the old statement spoke of reaching out to the world "with the transforming power of God's love," the new statement speaks vaguely of "impacting" the world. "Impact our neighborhood and the world." What on earth does this mean? What kind of impact are they talking about? How more vacuous can any word be than this word "impact." If there is a specific kind of impact we Christians collectively are supposed to be having, why not spell it out?

So here's my point in a nutshell. If you need to have a mission statement at all--and I'm not convinced that you do--you might as well make it spot-on and exceedingly clear. Leave out the mushily fungible words like "impact." Be specific. Use key words and concepts that are also Biblical key words and concepts. Identify the one thing needful for a church to be, in fact, the body of Christ.

I'm not offended or terribly put-out by this new mission statement, but neither am I inspired by it. It is not my mission statement. But on the bright side, it's only a mission statement. And who pays any attention to those?

Tomorrow we'll take up the "vision" part, and then we'll be all caught up. Foretaste: my response to the vision is a good deal more positive than my response to the mission.

"Recalibrating" the mission of the church

Our pastor has begun a new preaching series that will, he says, "recalibrate" the mission and vision of our church. This recalibration is a product of much discussion with the elders, and yet it is also his own "prophetic vision" for the future of our church. In other words, it is both a carefully thought out group decision and a vision from God.

Since I have been quietly dissatisfied with my church for some time, this comes as a ray of hope. The need for such a "recalibration" implies a recognition among the pastor and elders (perhaps) that we had in fact drifted from certain practices or emphases that had once been central, but were no longer so. In fact, as we talked it over in our small group last night, several other people seemed to agree with this assessment.

I hark you back to yesterday's post, in which I quote Craig Larsen, who says that the role of preaching and teaching in the church is to transform the believer's personal cosmology from one that is self-centered (i.e., all things take on their importance or usefulness insofar as they relate to me) to one that is God-centered. But it is possible to preach in such a way as to validate self-centeredness on a spiritual level. And this is the curse of the modern church.

So what I am looking for in this "recalibration" of the mission and vision of the church is an answer to the simple question, "What's at the center?" I am cautiously encouraged by this recalibration process so far (optimistic would be too strong a word). My pastor, a man for whom I have great respect, by the way, has preached two sermons in this series so far, the first of these introducing the new mission statement and the second introducing us to the "vision."

Here's my plan. I'm going to blog through this process with you. In the next couple of days I'll get caught up by sharing with you the mission statement and the vision statement that were "unpacked" in those last two sermons. I'll share my thoughts and concerns, and I'll seek your wisdom.

Hey, blogging has become my way of thinking out loud. Humor me!