I've just been reading Bob Kauflin's manuscript for his soon forth-coming book, Worship Matters.  There is much to refresh the pastor, the music guy, the Christian in reading this wisdom-filled volume, but here's just one quotation of simple straight-forwardness to show you what you have to look forward to:

"I know worship pastors who wouldn't be in their present church unless they were being paid.  That's not good.  Salary shouldn't be the primary means of determining where we serve.  And you shouldn't work at a church you wouldn't attend."

Don't you love to read a rarely stated but important truth put clearly?

Of course, pastors can go to a church hoping to change it, but without the pulpit, in a position like "minister of music" that would be very difficult.  Anyway, pray that God will use this book for His glory and for the good of His churches.

A pastor recently emailed me about "cleaning up the rolls," that is, trying to make his official membership more accurately reflect those who are present on Sundays--an excellent thing to do. He writes,

How do you deal with older ladies [as you're trying to bring order to your membership rolls]? A lot of them have been the backbone of the church for many years when the men were unable, unwilling etc...these women have gone through the hard times (often picking up the pieces after unruly men have split the church); they have been through battles with these people and don't want to see them hurt. Here are 4 situations I'm not sure how to proceed on:

#1 The church member is a very aged lady who doesn't make it out very much.  She never comes to church and has been a member for 80+ years. She supports the church financially but never comes. Should she be an active, voting member of the church?

#2  70+ year old member who is physically very sick.  She never comes to church and is quite cynical and hostile towards everything going on.  "Why are we changing everything..."  Will not return phone calls or answer the door when pastor tries to visit.  Has hospice coming in weekly but at the same time is out camping and other things all summer.  Removing her from membership would be perceived as picking on old, sick lady who isn't what she once was and will cause a lot of problems.  She has recently stopped supporting the church financially because she is angry with changes being made in 'her church'

#3 70+ year old member who is severely overweight.  Goes to town weekly but in very poor health.  Never comes to church.  This lady is as sweet as sugar, very friendly.  Has a profession of faith along the lines of "well, I think I have always been a Christian..."  What should be done with her membership- she still supports the church financially and is a very nice person.  Efforts to discuss the topic with her are confusing as she is not real intelligent and/or spiritually perceptive.

#4  Invalid in a nursing home- Should we put such people on an "Inactive membership list" with no voting privileges?

How would you deal with any of these situations pastorally?

One more reason why it is good to live near your church: Evangelism.  For example, I'm much more likely to convince an unbeliever to come to church with me when it is close.  Contrast, "Hey, would you like to come to church with me...it's only 40 minutes away?"  with "Hey, my church is two blocks down the street.  Would you like to come?"

How important is it for church staff and church members to live in geographical proximity to the church? First, we should note that this is not an explicit command in Scripture, so pastors should not require it for church membership, and churches should think carefully before making it mandatory for staff. Also, like most proverbial wisdom, this is one of those things that is generally true, but may vary significantly in specific situations and contexts. That said, the biblical emphases on community (e.g., Acts 2:42-47) and teachings on the benefits of family, hospitality and fellowship throughout the Bible strongly suggest that geographical proximity to a church is preferable and significant. Living near a church 1) encourages a biblical, missionary mindset and 2) creates many practical benefits for members and their families.

Missionary Mindset
When I was a young Christian, I remember meeting my first group of “real missionaries” at an overseas conference. In one conversation, one of the missionaries helpfully informed me that all Christians are missionaries, and should thus be thoughtful, intentional, and mission-minded in all decisions – what they choose for employment, what they wear, how they spend their free time and vacations, and where they live. The gospel and its ministries should be foremost in our decision-making and priorities. Therefore, as missionaries, perhaps one of the most important questions to ask is: Where is a biblically healthy church that I can plant myself and my family, for the sake of our own discipleship and ministry? Then, after we’ve answered this question, we are able to better consider other important questions such as our choice of employment, where we would personally prefer to raise our families, school options for our children, etc.

Practical Benefits
There are many obvious and serendipitous benefits as well:
• Saves precious time in commuting (and gas money!). This is time that can be used well in other areas, including the simple ministry of church attendance.
• Makes the whole process/routine of getting to and from church easier. This is particularly a huge blessing for mothers, and it creates more opportunities for families to take advantage of church services and activities during the week (e.g., discipleship/Bible studies, fellowship, etc.)
• Facilitates hospitality, community, fellowship, discipleship, and opportunities for ministry and service in the community.
• Creates a more tangible corporate witness in the community, as the neighborhood can watch the love, purity, and unity of Christians living among on another throughout the week, and not just on Sundays.
• Makes the Lord’s Day more restful, as Christian families can spend the extra time in family worship, hospitality, spiritual disciplines, and much-needed physical rest.

One pastor recently wrote and asked,

"Biblically, how big a factor do you think distance is in terms of choosing a good Church? I know it is ideal to live in the community that you go to a "local Church" in, although are having 9 stronger marks (to help growth and confidence in service) or the place more important? In other words, how significant is the geographical bit of the local in local Church?

Thoughts?

Dever had some good comments on being relevant versus being distinct in a Baptist Press article yesterday morning. A couple of key points:

"I would like to suggest that the most fundamental problem in the church is not that we are not relevant enough in relation to the world, but that the church is not distinct enough from the world. Our churches must reflect the character of God," said Dever.

"Church leaders should channel their energy toward maintaining purity in the church instead of spending great amounts of time and ministry on relating to the culture," Dever said.

"The problem with the seeker-sensitive model, emerging church model and even the traditional model that say, 'Get as many people into a room as possible and share the Gospel with them,' is that they view success in light of visible fruit," he said. "All three of these approaches say, 'Change your techniques and let's get some numbers.'

"Instead of being directed by [visible] success, we should be directed by faithfulness. We should say, 'If the Lord doesn't like our product, we will change the product.' We shouldn't take the idea that if we don't have X number of conversions in our church, then we must be doing something wrong. I am glad Jeremiah didn't think that. And I am glad that Jesus Christ didn't think that. Let us remember that we are following the One who was crucified as a revolutionary."

HT: Jim Hamilton

As most pastors know, there's no set law in the New Testament on where or how much Christians should give. That said, I do think pastors should set an example for the congregation by giving the first fruits of their income to their own local church.

Why? He should do this for the same reason that every Christian should join churches generally--it puts flesh on our profession that we no longer live according to self-rule but Christ's rule. In other words, church membership involves submitting our life and discipleship not to an abstract ("universal") but to a concrete ("local") group of people and its leaders as part of our discipleship to Christ. You can't say to Jesus, "I'll submit to you, but not to your people!" No, Christ has given us his church to teach us how to submit to him by submitting to one another (Eph. 5:21).

That means pastors should teach their members that one's own local congregation should be given a priority of service in every area of life, including how one donates money. Give to your church, in other words, before you give to the local shelter or the missionary overseas. Doing so demonstrates a healthy, godly submission to the congregation and its leaders, rather than an individualistic "I donate where I want to donate. I give money on my terms." Is it bad to say, "I want to give to cause X." Of course not. But is it better to say, "I want to give to my local church, so that together which can determine which causes are strategic"? I believe so.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. The issue here is not about this cause versus that cause. And for any "missional" readers, the issue is not about being inward-looking versus being outward-looking (missional literature often critiques Christians for having a "club" mentality in their churches, which can be a fair critique). The issue is about training our still rebellious hearts to submit to God and those he has placed over us in matters of discipleship--the congregation and its leaders (see Mt. 18; 1 Cor. 5; Heb. 13, etc.). So be outward looking, but do so through your local church. Submit yourself and your resources to the church so that the church together can give to outsiders with its greater pool of resources and wisdom. In a sense, you'll hit two birds with one stone: you'll give to outsiders, but you'll teach yourself and other members of your church humility in the process--the humility that comes with submitting to a local church.

Jesus has not "freed" us from sin so that we can be democratic free agents. He has freed us so that we can joyfully submit our lives to God and his people--money and all. And we do this concretely through the local church.

Now, how can a pastor verbally teach this kind of prioritization if he's not practicing what he's preaching? Besides, the pastor is not ultimately over the congregation. He's a part of it. He too is called to submit his own life and discipleship to the congregation.

One qualification: I'm not saying "Don't give to other ministries or organizations." Do! 9Marks is a parachurch ministry supported by the donations of Christians and churches. So, please, give. My children need to eat! I'm just saying to begin with your local church. Let that define your giving.

A pastor recently wrote and asked,

First, let me say it's good to be here...finally. (I'm talking about the new house.)

Second, I want to suggest, from Scripture, that Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 5:11 are not necessarily intended to rupture relations within the biological family, though that is precisely what they are intended to do within the spiritual family. Two scriptural lines of thought are relevant.

First, throughout the New Testament, Jesus' call to a family-transcending loyalty notwithstanding, the overarching concern is to preserve the integrity and peace of the natural family for the sake of the gospel. To take just one example: the believing spouse is urged to remain with the unbelieving spouse if possible, for the sake of the unbeliever's salvation. (1 Cor 7:12-14; 1 Pet 3:1-2). The context of 1 Corinthians 7 makes clear that this "living with" includes sexual intimacy, which by anyone's standards surpasses the intimacy of a shared meal. Typically we read these verses assuming the unbeliever has never professed faith, but there's nothing in the text that demands that assumption. Paul's instruction is equally applicable to the believer who's spouse has apostasized. It just doesn't make sense to read Paul to teach in that situation that they can have sex, but not a meal.

We could look at other examples, like Paul's condemnation of those who don't provide for their families, regardless of their status as believers, or the enduring obligation of children to honor their parents, regardless of their status as believers. The point remains the same. In the context of the biological family, such actions of love commend the gospel.

The second line of thought concerns the distinction the New Testament makes between the biological family and the spiritual family. Here, Jesus' question about who is my mother and brother and sister is supremely relevant (Mk 3:33-35). In the Old Covenant, the biological and spiritual families were one and the same, at least to external observation. In the New Covenant, as Jeremiah prophesied (Jer 31:29-34), the automatic, generational link between the biological and spiritual families is severed. Now, as Jesus points out, inclusion in the spiritual family of God is based on spiritual regeneration that produces repentance and faith. This produced all sorts of changes within the administration of the covenant that I don't need to explain to my fellow Baptist Church Matters bloggers.

But one area that perhaps we have not considered fully is the biological family and discipline. In the Old Covenant, if a spouse or child sought to entice you to idolatry, not only were they to be stoned, but you were to cast the first one (Deut. 13:6-12). Originally, it was the father who circumcised his sons (Gen. 17). But in the New Covenant, it is not the biological family that baptizes or exercises church discipline, it's the spiritual family, because spiritual relations are in view.

What does this mean for the wife who's husband has been excommunicated? Unlike most everyone else in their church, sharing a meal with him is not primarily an expression of Christian fellowship, but of familial love and duty. She should certainly not treat him as if he were a Christian. But neither of them ever thought toast and coffee in the morning was about that anyway. On the other hand, she should now pray for him, not with him, and she should focus her concern and conversation on his repentance. But surely even that looks different when you're with someone every day than it would for the pastor who bumps into him on the street. Isn't this precisely what Paul and Peter were both getting at? Far from invalidating your marriage or requiring you to engage in 24/7 evangelistic conversation, unbelief in the home and marriage is a unique opportunity for the patient display of love and grace up close and personal.

If I were a particular kind of Presbyterian, who held to a highly objective structure for the covenant family, I could see arguing against table fellowship with an excommunicate inside the family. But as a Baptist and congregationalist, that sort of overlay is precisely what I want to avoid. Not so that I can keep the church out of my living room. But rather to make clear that my living room is not the church. I have obligations to both my biological family and my spiritual family. Sometimes, the same person will be a member of both families, sometimes not. But the obligations endure, and in both cases, they do so for the sake of the gospel.