Don't Confuse History With Theology

Many of our mistakes in church life come from missing the difference between how we should use sections of the Bible that are primarily history vs. theology. (Yes, there are other categories, like poetry and prophecy,  with their own distinctive features--that's another conversation.)

History books and doctrine books should be read differently. There is overlap in them, of course, with events being mentioned in the epistles and teaching points cataloged in the history books. But in general, historical passages describe what happened and are a poor source for determining what ought to have happened.

In histories, we get details on how Sampson thumbed his nose at God's rules for his life, one by one. We aren't spared learning of the adultery and murder plots of King David. Just because it's mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean God's endorsing it. History is crucial to Christianity. We base our faith on a real person who did specific acts. We believe in far more than abstract philosophies.

However, when we're establishing patterns for our lives, habits for our churches, bare history leaves us guessing.  This is where theology books come in. They tell us the reasons behind the particulars and help us interpret the histories.

Just because Paul traveled by ship didn't mean all missionaries must. Just because the first church met in homes doesn't mean God prefers homes for church services.

In short, it's sketchy to made a rule for living based on a historical example only. Know the history, but put extra weight on theology books (like the epistles) for deciding controversial issues.

My First Video Post! Teaching That Honors Our Members (Part 11: Values & Practices)

My first attempt at a video blog post--on the shift in the leader's thinking necessary to do member-driven teaching.

I'd love feedback on this video. I've got one more video I'm working on posting already, and am hoping to do more of these. So I'd love any comments as I keep learning!

No Sermons on Sunday? (Part 10: Values & Practices Unpacked)

Sermons aren't a necessary element of church. Studying the Bible is necessary; but sermons are not.
 
The modern sermon--a lecture from the pastor--isn't based off the Hebrew model of discipleship. Yes, Jesus did address crowds and the Sermon on the Mount is awesome. But with his disciples he spent much more time asking questions, working on ministry projects together, in dialogue (not just monologue).
 
Our current sermon template emerged in the middle ages of Europe when the entrance exam to become a priest included proving you could read. So each priest had all his illiterate members sit down and be quiet while he explained what the Bible said.
 
Bible Study is crucial for a healthy church. It's our second defining practice. But exclusive use of the sermon format actually weakens a church.
 
 

I not only work as a pastor, but also as a consultant and speaker to all sorts of organizations, from multi-billion dollar companies to start-up ministries. And if all I did was lecture, I'd get fired.
 
Ask any school teacher. Read any book on professional training. Listen to any news show on education reform. All education professionals agree that lecture-style teaching is among the least effective methods of teaching.
 
Only pastors don't seem to think so.
 
And pastors only think this way about teaching on Sunday morning. Churches who do small groups don't require sermons during those meetings. Once freed from the assumptions on how Sunday mornings have to be done, they get very creative on how to teach and train people, with videos followed by interactive discussions while using workbooks, for example.
 
Don't get me wrong. My spiritual gifts include teaching. I love to teach. And the church needs great teaching. The church even needs great sermons, from time to time. I'm not anti-sermons. I'm anti-sermons-all-the-time. We can do better than medieval teaching strategies.
 
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE PRACTICALLY
One of the leaders of our member-driven church (chosen in advance) stands up and presents an introduction, outlining the theme for the day's Bible study and explains any key background or context that people would need to know to read the scripture passages well. This takes maybe 5-7 minutes.
 
Then we release our members to their table groups. Our members sit tables surrounded by chairs, the same tables we ate lunch at (see the post on our practice of Eating Meals Together).  Each table is given a page with scripture passages listed and questions about those passages. We also have a Table Leader--trained in Bible Study principles--assigned to each table who facilitates the discussion for that table.  And our members open their Bibles, read verses out loud to each other, ask questions, and discuss the scripture's application to their lives.
 
After a while, the teacher who delivered the introduction stands back up and leads the room in some closing thoughts.
 
And then we practice whatever we taught (see the post on our value of Growth Through Practice). If it's a study on prayer, we pray for a while. If it's something harder to practice on the spot, then we give ourselves time to make plans on when, where, and how we'll practice when we leave (and probably pray with each other about our practice plans, too).
 
Are there topics that require teaching longer than 5-7 minutes? Absolutely. Some ideas are so new and complex that I've spent 30 min setting the stage. But even then I make at least a little time for the table groups to discuss what's been shared. Because lecture-only teaching isn't as fruitful as allowing the members to drive their own learning through discussion and discovery.
 
How do you think the members of your church would respond if they were given the chance to have group discussions this coming Sunday? How would the staff of your church respond?

Blog Post: (Part 2) Member-Driven Church Values & Practices Unpacked

"Relationship With Jesus" wasn't on my original list of core values. Don't worry, I do think it's important. I just figured our first core value, Biblical Foundation, made calling out having a relationship with Jesus redundant. I mean, that idea is kind of all over the Bible. :)

But I was convinced by my fellow church members that it was necessary to name it separately.

Sadly, it IS possible to be educated on the Bible but reject Jesus. It is not knowledge of God that brings freedom and life. It is a relationship with God.

James, as usual, puts it pretty bluntly: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder." James 2:19

Jesus Himself said in Matthew 7:22-23 (one of the most sobering passages in the Bible to me), "Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me you workers of lawlessness.'"

Yeah, after being reminded of these verses (among others), it wasn't hard to convince me that 'Relationship With Jesus' should get its own listing in our core values.

Blog Post: (Part 1) Member-Driven Church Values & Practices Unpacked

Biblical Foundation, claims first on our list for a reason. All belief systems begin with axioms--core assumptions that can't be proven. The starting point you choose dramatically impacts the conclusions you end up with. All of us--Christian, Buddhist, or Atheist--believe and behave as we do because of our axioms.

For member-driven churches, the source for all truth is the belief the Bible was inspired by God, is inerrant, and has been preserved throughout the centuries. We evaluate every idea by how it aligns with the Bible.

We base our doctrines solely on the Bible (like many churches). This was one of the pillars of the Great Reformation in the 1500's (Sola Scriptura is the fancy Latin name). The Reformers demoted the teachings of the church fathers from equal status with the Bible. Doctrines not supported clearly by Bible passages don't have great weight.

We also base our church practices solely on the Bible (unlike many churches). Studying the Bible and church history, I realized that much of modern church practices are "extra-biblical". They're not in direct conflict with the Bible, but they aren't required either.

"The Great Reformation changed the world for the good in the 1500’s. But its improvements were largely confined to doctrinal practices. There were massive problems with the doctrine of that era and their thinking desperately needed to be reformed—to return to a biblical foundation. While many of the leaders of the Reformation called us to continually rethink and reform, we pretty much quit after they died. And they didn’t examine their church practices much at all. Yes, some of the most glaring church practices were stopped, like the selling of indulgences, where people could buy the 'right' to sin. But the Protestant church that emerged from that turmoil carried with it a structure and strategy that was very similar to the culturally compromised church it had broken away from. That medieval model of church solidified in an era when being clergy meant being one of the elite who could actually read. The educated few stood in front of the ignorant many and explained the scriptures to them. It was a church model shaped by the cultural forces of its time, not through serious study of the scripture. We don’t live in that era anymore. It’s time to finish the Reformation and return not just our beliefs but also our behavior to a radically biblical foundation.” ~ Awake From Atrophy