Mark,

First of all and above all, thank you for your talk at Together for the Gospel, and for starting a conversation about these things. I’ve read enough of this new literature—especially from some of the guys we might call emergent—to know that it is a real and dangerous issue. The Christian gospel is in serious danger of being melted down into a call merely to do good works here and now in the social and political realms. What you’re pointing out is that that “gospel” simply isn’t going to cut it, that a “gospel” that majors on good deeds and social work to the detriment of the atoning, saving work of Christ is no “gospel” at all. As I’ve put it elsewhere, it winds up making Christianity just another boring moralism that’s no different from any other religion in the world.

I do have some thoughts about your talk, specifically about this first “cry” you’ve just posted. The first (others may follow in later posts) is about the definition of the word “gospel.”

I suppose the main thing is that I’m a little uncomfortable limiting the scope of the word “gospel” to the message of Jesus’ substitutionary death to reconcile his people to God along with the call to us to have faith in him and repent. Of course, I agree entirely that this is the heart of the gospel, from which everything else flows. But I don’t want to say that everything that flows from that—whether that’s the resurrection of my body or the renewal of the world—are mere implications of the gospel.

Here’s the point: Doesn’t the New Testament sometimes use the word “gospel” to refer to the whole message of good news that God is proclaiming to the world? (Think of Jesus proclaiming “the gospel of the kingdom,” for example. Isn’t he using the word there in this broader sense? See also Romans 2:16, Galatians 3:8, Colossians 1:5, 2 Timothy 1:10, and Revelation 14:6, for possible other examples.) And doesn’t that good news, that gospel, include not just the promise of forgiveness of sins through Christ, but also the promise of reconciliation between human and human, of the resurrection of the body, of the renewal of the world, of the consummation of the kingdom, and of all the other benefits the Bible describes—all of them through and because of Christ? All of those promises, I would think, are part of the good news of Christianity—the gospel.

Now let me make just a few clarifying statements—

First, I think you’re right to define and emphasize justification by faith alone in Christ alone as the heart of the Christian gospel. That is without doubt or equivocation the fountainhead of everything else, and you don’t get to the rest of the “good news” unless you start there. In other words, to tell someone that it’s not really important to focus on the atonement, but rather that you can be a Christian just by being a “follower of Jesus” and by “living like Jesus” is not Christianity. To be a Christian is to believe in Jesus, repenting of sins and trusting for salvation in his atoning, reconciling, justifying, substitutionary death on the cross.

Second, and relatedly, I think it is a mistake when people say that non-Christians can in any sense do “kingdom work” or “gospel work.” Whatever that non-Christian friend is doing when he’s caring for the poor or cleaning up a park, it is not kingdom work. (So, Jonathan, I wonder if the Rwandan survivors you describe below are Christians? If not, then we can and should recognize that their forgiveness of their tormentors is wonderful—even, as you say, amazing—and that it’s a result of God’s common grace to them. But—and I know you’re not suggesting otherwise—we should also be very clear that what is going on there is not kingdom work or kingdom reconciliation unless it flows from the cross. And their forgiveness of their tormentors certainly doesn’t put them in the kingdom. The only way into the kingdom is through the blood of the King.)

Third, and relatedly, I agree with you that it’s a mistake and confusing and downright bad to say that a church or a Christian can “preach the gospel” by doing good works. I believe the Bible sometimes uses the word “gospel” in a broad sense to include everything God has promised to do in the world through Christ, but when Scripture talks about “preaching the gospel,” that is the proclamation, in words, of Jesus’ saving work on the cross, and the call, in words, to all men everywhere to repent and believe. “The Gospel” is a message, not an action. But it’s a big message that encompasses everything God has promised to do through Christ.

So I suppose my main point is that I just don’t want to limit the word "gospel" to include only "the announcement that God has provided a way for sinful human beings to be reconciled to God and his wrath removed," as Jonathan puts it below. Again, yes, that individual salvation, that divine-human reconciliation, is the fountainhead from which all the rest flows, but surely we don’t want to say that the resurrection of the body, the renewal of the world, etc are somehow not part of the "good news" of Christianity.

Last week I attended a screening of AS WE FORGIVE in one of the House of Representatives office buildings. It’s a documentary that chronicles the recent release of 50,000 Rwandan genocide perpetrators due to a century-long backlog of court cases, and how Rwandan genocide survivors are learning not just to cope with the return of the people who killed their friends and family members, but to forgive and embrace them as neighbors.  

(Two CHBC church members were involved in the production of the documentary; and a member of Church of the Resurrection, several blocks from CHBC, directed it!).

Some of the stories of forgiveness are absolutely astonishing. To cite one example: imagine if one of the men who participated in a movement that killed your husband and five children moved back into your village…and he was repentant…and he wanted to help build a new house for you…and to help you complete your farming work before the food rotted for the season! How would you respond? 

The documentary has played in such venues as the World Bank or a Capitol office building (it's not explicitly Christian). And the themes and goals are clearly ones that Christians will want to support and be involved in.

Also, the processes of reconciliation between perpetrators and survivors are being facilitated by an interesting interplay of government agencies, churches, non-church ministries, and individuals. 

Your church may want to consider requesting a showing at your location for the purposes of stimulating good conversations among neighbors and colleagues in your community (though I’d suggest finding some other time than your main weekly gatherings:-). Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis did. I’ve been told the aforementioned Church of the Resurrection is doing good work through partnering with a church in Rwanda.

A buddy at church who works for "the government" was recently discussing this issue about defining the gospel versus its public implications.

He made the point that plenty of his non-Christian colleagues in government might agree with him on various social agendas (and are working toward real change!), such as reducing third world debt, making health care available to those who don't have it, and so forth. But then he asked (rhetorically), "If my non-Christian friends agree with me on these types of issues, what else do I have to give them?!"

Answer: the announcement that God has provided a way for sinful human beings to be reconciled to God and his wrath removed, sin being the heart-cause of all such structural maladies.

Mark's first point, I take it, is that there is a difference between that announcement and all the kingdom-seeking things people with new, compassionate, born-again hearts will necessarily do (e.g. Rom. 6:1-2; James 2:26) once they have embraced that announcement. And preachers should preach both: the announcement and the compassionate life which is commensurate with the announcement.

A Christian's compassionate heart is not the good news. A Christian's compassionate work is not the good news. The good news is that which, among other things, makes the Christian's heart compassionate and joyfully bound to doing compassionate works.

Mark's implicit second point, I take it, is that the local church is the only institution on earth that was given the special authority by Jesus to guard, protect, and proclaim this announcement (e.g. Mt. 18:18; John 21:23). Therefore, the local church in its capacity as a corporate entity must keep this task primary, not just equi-primary (don't equi-primary partnerships always, over time, give way to two separated primaries, some people going for one, some for the other).

CRY #1—“MAKE THE GOSPEL PUBLIC!”

One of the cries going up these days is that the gospel should not be understood merely as the salvation of individuals. Instead, it is said, the gospel—and therefore the mission of the church—is about saving the structures of society.

Some Christians have argued for a complete disjunction between the church and the world—a separation of the two which leads them to withdraw from this world entirely. Partially in response to this error, other voices (like Tom Wright’s) have begun to champion the biblical witness to God’s concern for societal issues like justice and poverty. They speak of “redeeming the culture,” and suggest that some evangelicals have wrongly privatized the gospel. Indeed they suggest that the gospel, as one of its goals, aims to reform politics and government. Thus in the name of “seeking the peace and the prosperity of the city” (Jeremiah 29:7), some pastors are leading their churches to take responsibility for nearby schools, housing developments, and other matters of interest for the wider community. They explain that they are simply living out Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount and Peter’s words about living good lives among the pagans (Matt. 5:16; 1 Peter 2:12).

Now, if these voices mean that we pastors should educate our members to think biblically about every area of life, then I agree with them. We should teach our congregations to act wisely in all the stewardships of their lives.

However, I believe confusion enters when concern for issues like poverty and justice is taken to be either the gospel itself or the central mission of the church. As I read the New Testament, I do not see any example of the church understanding its gospel or its mission to be the direct shaping of the laws of the land or the improving of its structures. Certainly, the apostle Paul never tells the church to spend its time explicitly instructing the Roman emperor or shaping the pagans’ view of culture.

The gospel that has been committed to us is the Christian message that Jesus has died in the place of sinners in order to reconcile them to God. That gospel has been uniquely entrusted to the church, and thus it must remain the center of our message and our mission. Once that message is received, then—of course, yes—we will begin to work out the implications of this message. But those implications aren’t the gospel itself. If you say they are, confusion will result. The message of God’s fully sufficient work in Christ will be mixed with our own works. There is no entrance into the Kingdom apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ!

Now, I don’t mean to communicate any indifference about the issues of this life. Both evangelism and compassionate service must be part of my individual discipleship, and both ought to typify my life as a Christian. But are evangelism and compassionate service equally part of “the gospel”? No. Of course the local church may be involved in good works, and certainly Christians must be involved in good works. But the local church should not think that it has a responsibility to do so because such good works are a part of the gospel itself. When the church is involved in good works, it should do so as a reflection of and an attraction to this gospel of Jesus Christ.

To call the church to focus on repairing the passing structures of this fallen world—a world under the curse of God—is dangerous in at least a couple of ways. First, it can cause churches the same discouragement that comes to those who build sandcastles at low-tide. Whether by our socially-informed preaching or by any of our actions, we will never usher in the Kingdom of God.  That will only happen when Christ returns. And, as Revelation 21:4 tells us, the Kingdom will come by God’s action, not ours.

Second, and even worse, giving a primary focus to repairing the world’s passing structures distracts us from the work of preaching the gospel—the news that people can be eternally reconciled to God through repentance and faith. The fact is, if we lead Christians to believe that they may preach the gospel just as much by alleviating poverty as by evangelism, many of them will choose the former because the world recognizes and values that kind of service, while it rejects and scorns the work of evangelism. In time, such a “public” gospel will inevitably lose its supernaturally awkward corners; it will be smoothed out and made acceptable to sinners all around.

Evangelism will never be appreciated by the world. So it is our special task, as pastors, to protect the priority of evangelism.

Brothers, never substitute doing good works for sharing the gospel! Don’t try to improve the gospel by making it public like this. You will end up losing it. Preach the gospel we have received.

On the last day of the T4G conference in Louisville I greeted John Piper at the speaker area on the floor of the auditorium. Here's how part of our conversation went:

Matt: Would you like water on the platform for your talk?

John: Too late.

Matt: I'm sorry?

John: It's too late. I learned a long time ago that taking in water while you're preaching doesn't do any good; you have to take it in before you preach. I take in as much water as I can one hour before I preach.

Matt: Would you like to know where the restroom is? (OK, I didn't say this last line, but I really wanted to!)

I had never heard this, but it made a lot of sense so I thought I'd pass it on to all you preachers.

Another hint about water and speaking? In one of Ronald Reagan's last interviews while still in the White House he was asked what contributed to his success as the "Great Communicator"? Reagan, unlike other speakers who had cold water at their side, always had warm water at his side to loosen and relax his throat.

I now am officially tapped out on all I know about preaching and water.

I was very encouraged today by the Spurgeon quote that's been ringing in my ears since T4G. Spurgeon, speaking of Wesley and Whitefield, said something to the effect of "they may preach the gospel better, but they cannot preach a better gospel". In his sermon "All of Grace", Spurgeon attributes the quote to his grandfather.

I found great encouragement in knowing that though I am by no means the best preacher, I have the privilege of preaching the best gospel.

Yea, I think Mike’s right about eldership. Pray for the Lord to raise up elders of all kinds of ethnicities, but don’t make a man an elder because he’s of a certain ethnicity.  And certainly don't make him an elder because of his ethnicity if he's not qualified.  Make a man an elder because God's raised him up as a qualified elder, and then rejoice if he happens to increase the diversity of your leadership.

The music question’s harder. Music is deeply ingrained into people’s ethnicity, whether that’s hip-hop, cowboy, yuppie, or whatever (we gotta come up with some more examples of ethnicities—what ethnicity do Jonathan and I fit in?). Anyway, it’s hard for me to believe that the answer is to follow up a hip-hop free-style with a steel-guitar accompanied rendition of “I’ll Fly Away,” and then bring it all to a smooth suburban end with “Here I Am To Worship.” I’m not sure a “mix” is the way to go.

I think I’d say the best solution is just simplicity: Try hard not to lean into any ethnicity at all.  But even then, simplicity isn’t simple, is it?

I mean, what on earth is simplicity? How would you even begin to define that?  Isn’t what I think of as “simple” not “simple” at all to someone from another ethnicity, but rather highly tilted toward my own preferences and comforts? And besides, given people’s hang-ups about music, would a church going for simplicity in music even be able to survive? Don’t you have to have music that really appeals to somebody? And if it appeals to one somebody, won’t it repel somebody else? That’s why I was very serious when I asked if building such a church is a hopeless dream this side of eternity.

If there is a solution, it seems to me that it probably doesn’t rest with the guy who plans the worship service anyway, but rather in Christians’ own hearts. Having a truly multi-ethnic church would require a group of Christians to decide that worshiping together with Christians of many different ethnicities is more important to them than singing music they really, really like. Right?

It seems to me that any church that finally manages to transcend ethnic lines is inevitably going to be one where just about everybody says, “Yea, I’m not crazy about the music. It’s not what I’d play in my iPOD. But I’ll tell you what I do like: I like seeing all these different people worshiping Jesus Christ together. And that’s more than worth it.”

Never been to a cowboy church.  But there's one really close to my hometown in Texas.  Anybody ever been to a hip-hop church?

Jonathan,

Since you asked... I certainly wouldn't use the term "Affirmative Action" to describe ethnically conscious hiring/leadership decisions. Why? Well, I'm glad you asked.

In my humble opinion, this term today combines maximum fuzziness of meaning with maximum vituperative emotional heat. Such a word is literally too hot to handle in what purports to be sober analysis.

But I would say that as a pastor I would like to develop leadership that reflects the ethnic make-up of the area around us. So I am particularly praying that the Lord would raise up another Latin American elder for our church (we only have one currently). I also try to be conscious of (sensitive to?) ethnicity when it comes to service leading and reading Scripture.

"Hey, you're interrupting my vacation! I can't believe you. I could be with my family right now! I mean, I could have simply not turned the computer on. I could have not read my email. And I suppose I could have chosen not to respond by blogging...but, it's still your fault! Don't you have any respect?!"

;-)

Greg (or others),
1) Have you really ever seen a cowboy church? I gotta check it out.

2) You  wrote, "But I would think one of the implications of Thabiti’s talk is that we should strive to build churches that transcend not only race but also ethnicity—a place where cowboys, hip-hoppers, and yuppies all worship Christ together." So let's get real practical with that. Does that mean churches should incorporate music from these different ethnicities? Should churches adopt an affirmative action policy for staff hiring or elder nominations? I'm being serious here.

Let me pick up one of these ideas--elder nominations or staff hiring. No, I don't think an official policy should be set in place, but I'd like to propose that a church does well to pray and ask God to bring it members of multiple ethnicities for assuming leadership positions. In fact, given our nation's trouble with these matters, I propose that the gospel encourages us to pray in exactly this fashion.

Thoughts? And how about music?

No, I have no idea why I picked that title for this post. It just seemed like the thing to do.

UPDATE: reader Scott L. has informed me that there really is a cowboy church. Giddyup.

Since Jonathan emailed me directly demanding that I respond to the questions he posted, I thought I'd interrupt my vacation in the "barbecue capitol of the world" (Lexington, NC--which, by the way Greg, is where you vacation when you live on a tropical island) and chime in.

First off, thanks brothers for engaging these ideas.  For me, there's something about "iron sharpening iron" in the comments and questions.  I appreciate all of you for the thoughtful encouragements and questions and suggestions.

Second, the questions....  Jonathan first, since his were so important to interrupt my time with my lovely wife and adorable children... who are with their husband and daddy on their first vacation since entering the pastorate full time. :-)

1.  The differences in skin color are biological or genetic.  But "race" is a much bigger idea/social theory than skin color.  When most people see a person of a differing skin color, they think "race" not just skin color.  By thinking "race," they are calling on a whole bunch of assumptions and ideas that make up the notion "race."  That is not biological but social and cultural.  It's linked to skin color in most people's thinking, but it's not caused by biology in any way.   We need to break apart "race as biology" from cultural and social assumptions/ideas in order to be free from the imprisonment that "race" is.  Here's how I tried to put it in the talk:

The emphasis in the OT and NT wherever the Bible speaks of creation of humankind is mankind’s common biological descent from Adam.  Our common ancestry is underscored.  The most fundamental recognition is not our difference labeled as “race” but our oneness, not our discontinuity but continuity.

To put it another way—This obvious truth that all men are descended from Adam and Eve through the line of Noah… demands complete abandonment of “race as biological distinctiveness.”  “Race” in the way we commonly use the term, as a proxy for explaining phenotypical differences—differences in appearances, does not exist in truth.

I want to be clear.  I am not saying the differences in skin color, hair texture, etc. does not exist.  I am saying that the theory we use to explain those differences is completely false, non-existent.

2.  I'd ditto Greg's comments re: the necessity to think about, evaluate, appreciate, and use the best (that is, most godly) aspects of ethnicity.  If we're to recognize or appreciate skin color, then it should be done in the way we recognize and appreciate the diversity of cloud configurations, differing colors and smells of roses, the brilliant array of colors in a stunning sunset or sunrise.  In other words, God purposes to be glorified in the fact that He has made all men in His own image from one parentage and yet made them incredibly diverse. We need to stand in awe of that... not try to look into the secret things of God that belong to Him alone. 

Greg, by God's grace,it's not a hopeless dream to see people from varying ethnicities worshipping joyfully together in the same local church.  By God's grace, I think there are an increasing number of such churches.  We should pray and work for more.  To do otherwise would be to settle for dividing Christ's body in a way that He never does.

One final and very important question that needs to be answered:

WHEREAS he has compelling knowledge of Public Enemy and hip hop,

WHEREAS he demonstrates a remarkable ability to roll with da bruthas,

WHEREAS he is no less cool than C.J. Mahaney,

WHEREAS grace and empathy fill his heart, showing itself in mercy and love for all,

WHEREAS God has granted him the privilege of serving a multi-ethnic church, which he does with joy,

Be it henceforth and forever RESOLVED, that Mike McKinley is a true brutha, down with the cause, and granted a lifetime, irrevocable ghetto card.  He can roll with me anywhere, any time.

Where exactly do you go for vacation when you live in Grand Cayman? I mean, do you call your travel agent and say, “Man, I really need to get away from it all . . . Find me somewhere cold and ugly.”

I REALLY WISH Thabiti had a national platform for giving that talk. There's lots of talk these days about the nation’s hope to become post-racial. Well, I think the ideas Thabiti presented are the way forward.  There may still be lots of questions, lots of issues to work through, but that’s the direction to a post-racial nation.

For that matter, what a great model of applying gospel truth to a universally pressing issue. Everyone is thinking about race these days, and most everyone is confused about it, if not downright angry. Thabiti’s talk was a wonderful example of bringing reconciling, peacemaking clarity to a boiling issue—just by applying biblical truth to it. 

JONATHAN, YOUR second question down there is the one I’ve had on my mind. I think I’d answer it by saying, Yes, we should just preach the gospel and give no attention to skin color. At all. To skin color. But I don’t think you can avoid giving some attention to what Thabiti’s calling ethnicity.  I mean, ethnicity is going to include a whole framework for how one thinks about the world, a whole worldview, and surely you have to give attention to that prevailing worldview as you preach the gospel.

But here's another question: Given that we’re recognizing the existence of ethnicity, and that we’re acknowledging that ethnicity runs deep, how do you build a church that doesn’t favor one ethnicity over another in its culture? Some people, of course, have just given up on that dream. Witness cowboy churches or hip-hop churches. But I would think one of the implications of Thabiti’s talk is that we should strive to build churches that transcend not only race but also ethnicity—a place where cowboys, hip-hoppers, and yuppies all worship Christ together. I think Thabiti put it something like, “a new Christian ethnicity.” But is that kind of church culture—where cowboys, hip-hoppers, artists, yuppies, and Irish rock singers all come together—a hopeless dream? If not, what would it look like?

Upon my return from T4G 08, that's the question I was asked to answer in a random national poll of pastors for a leading Christian magazine. They wanted to know how I would rate myself and my church on seven different questions, both now and ten years ago. Here are the questions:

1. I (my church) focus more on the Epistles or the Gospels.
2. I (my church) believe the mission of the Gospel is advanced by proclamation or demonstration.
3. I (my church) believe the goal of local evangelism is to grow my church of to grow the church.
4. I (my church) see the Kingdom of God as a future heavenly reality or a present reality on earth.
5. I (my church) believe conversion is a singular decision or a journey over time.
6. I (my church) believe the Gospel is more exclusive or more inclusive.
7. I (my church) believe partnering with other local churches is essential to our mission or not important to our mission.

So what are your answers?

Hey Jonathan,

I think Thabiti is off on vacation, or whatever it is that rock-star pastors do after making it big time.

I wouldn't say that in my stupid joke I'm equating PE with being a brother. Instead, I am offering it as proof of the fact that I ought to be recognized as such.

In all seriousness, though, this hits near the heart of tension in Thabiti's message. Ethnicity is fluid and has less to do with biology than culture. So Thabiti sometimes used "black" culture interchangeably with "hip-hop" culture. Of course, I am simplifying greatly.

But it does raise the question, how small of a cultural sub-group can you be and still be an ethnicity? Is punk rock an ethnicity? Or is it a smaller sub-set of "white" culture? How about polka players? How about self-important Irish rock singers like... never mind...?

1. "Soft preaching makes for hard people."
2. "Preachers are the only ones in the world who can take no credit for everything we do (except the mistakes)."
3. "It's not about how cool you are, but how clear you are."

I highly recommend listening to all of Dr. MacArthur's talk entitled "The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing".

Mike,
Why are you equating Public Enemy and being a "brother" (or brutha)?

Thabiti,
As I've already said to you, great talk! I hope it makes the rounds.

1) I was sitting next to a pastor (and friend) who kept saying, "But the differences of race are biological." How would you respond to him?

2) I overheard another guy conclude from your talk that, since race is not a reality, churches should give no attention to differences of skin color, but simply preach the gospel. Is that an inference you intended?

An intriguing little observation is tucked away in Packer and Dever's "In My Place Condemned He Stood" on why they won't refer to the current unhelpful models of the atonement as "heresies":

We shall not, however, be calling it heresy, for this term today combines maximum fuzziness of meaning with maximum vituperative emotional heat. Such a word is literally too hot to handle in what purports to be sober analysis. We shall speak instead of unorthodoxy, a word that seems to us both more exact and less explosive. (page 17)

Interesting.

As a pastor, I have the best job in the world and the highest calling I can imagine. But it's amazing how the most sublime "tasks" (privileges, really) like praying for God's people, shepherding the flock, and preaching the Word can become rote and routine. Not that I'm just going through the motions, but it's easy to lose perspective on what you're doing.

With that said, I found CJ's talk at T4G to be immensely re-energizing. His points were excellent and challenging, but I was most struck by the bigness of the ministry to which we're called. I can't wait to get back into the saddle tomorrow.

Listen to it here.

OK, so I'm sitting in the lobby of the Marriott in Louisville basking in the post-T4G glow. And all I can say is... WOW Thabiti! Way to represent!

This was an outstanding conference, no doubt. John Piper and CJ Mahaney messed with my soul. Mark Dever and John MacArthur and RC Sproul messed with my preaching. Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler messed with my mind. But Thabiti, you blew me up brother.

(If you haven't heard Thabiti's talk from Tuesday night at T4G, stop reading this and go listen to it here).

Let me say a couple of things...

1. I admire the courage it takes to say what you said.

2. Your "walking into the cafeteria" illustration (seriously, go listen to it) has been playing in my brain since Tuesday night. I walked into the bathroom at White Castle on Wednesday and there was a homeless man in there washing himself. I was initially repulsed (to my shame), but the thought immediately went through my head "like me in Adam, like me in sin and need of grace" and my repulsion turned into gracious compassion.
God used you as an instrument to change me. I trust that my story will be multiplied 5000+ times in the lives of the people at that conference.

3. Finally, I want you to know that it is one of my life goals to be claimed as a brother (ala CJ and John Piper). I am willing to recite the entire Public Enemy corpus if necessary.

Thanks again brother for all you hard work and for serving us so.

Here's an interesting email 9Marks received about Bible covers:

I'm not sure how you all choose potential topics to cover in your bi-monthly eJournals but...The youth pastor at our church purchases Bibles for our graduating seniors every year and he usually shops for those Bibles using two criteria: (1) external appearance, and (2) cost.  He wants to be able to purchase a Bible for these young adults that looks 'edgy' and 'cool,' and he also wants to find a good bargain....So I decided to try to help him find a more appropriate Bible that was 'cool' looking, affordable, and also was a good formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence translation. What I found over the next three hours of researching Bibles was alarming. There are plenty of 'cool' looking, affordable Bibles that externally would be eye-catching and appealing to youth and young adults, but almost all of them were what I would consider to be poor translations or paraphrases....I found several, but was alarmed to see which versions they were. The New Century Version (NCV) and Today's New International Version (TNIV) have plenty of cool looking Bibles in the $10-$15 price range.  There are also plenty of cool looking paraphrases like The Message and the New Living Translation which were eye-catching and in the same price range.  After a lot of searching I did find a few cool looking NIV versions and a few cool looking Holman Christian Standard Versions, but price wise these Bibles were in the $25 range.  Frustrated with what I was finding on-line, I then visited our local Lifeway store to only find more of the same.

Often times you hear parents complain that alcohol companies are gearing their advertisements to youth and young adults to make their products look cool, even though they can be very harmful.  It seems that some of these Bible publishers are doing the exact same thing. They are taking the translations and paraphrases which many consider to be harmful, they are dressing them up in 'cool' 'edgy' covers and then they are charging significantly lower costs to get youth and young adults to purchase their products.

An excellent question.  I don't know.  Here are a few thoughts:

1) In Acts 13, the whole church certainly lays their hands on Barnabas and Saul to set them apart for the work of a missionary.  That's enough to make me think it's a really good idea to have the whole church vote to commission a missionary.  Is it enough to make me think it would be wrong for the elders to do the commissioning themselves?  Hmmm.....maybe.

2) One commenter mentioned Acts 15 in this vein of thought, too.  There's definitely a formal "deciding" and "choosing" there, done by the whole church.  But were Judas and Silas missionaries?  Or more like messengers from one church to another?  Regardless, I think this, too, would lend weight to the idea that in commissioning a missionary---one who is to represent the church and its beliefs---the congregation as a whole should make the decision.

I'm amending my list.

1.  Membership and Discipline
2.  Leadership
3.  Doctrine
4.  Commissioning of Missionaries
[5.  Budget]
[6.  Rules]

By the way, Wiki says that Henry Robert was a Union Army Major who, when called upon to moderate a Baptist church meeting, failed so spectacularly to keep order that he decided to write a book about it. 

So Robert's Rules came out of one man's frustration with an unruly Baptist business meeting.  Raise your hand if you're surprised by that.

You guys are seriously testing my knowledge of Robert's rules of order!  Hence both of my post titles alluding to Robert's rules begin, "Point of clarification."  Come to think of it, who was Robert and why did he get to set the rules? 

Greg, a question about your five areas of voting.  Would you all take some kind of congregational vote on missionaries?  I'm thinking something loosely premised on Acts 13?  Thoughts?

Hey Greg,

Thanks for laying that out. Though I haven't self-consciously used those five categories, I think our practice conforms to that which you laid out.

A few thoughts on the topic (though I may be a little tangential to the intent of your post):

1. Mark Driscoll has written: As I studied the Bible, I found more warrant for a church led by unicorns than by majority vote. That's a great line, but I think your post shows that congregationalism narrowly edges out unicornism in terms of Biblical evidence (if not in terms of practical advantages).

2. I love congregationalism. Sure, its critics will point out that congregationalism is a disaster if you have a church full of carnal people. But if I have a church full of carnal people, passing the budget is not my biggest problem. My biggest problem is that the people in my church don't love Jesus. So a Presbyterian or Episcopalian church that is full of carnal people has as big a problem as I do.

3. I aim to over-communicate with the church. When in doubt, we talk about it and (if necessary) vote on it. There are times when it would be more convenient and easier not to have to wait until a members meeting to take a certain action. There are times when the elders have wrestled with a difficult issue and made a decision and part of me doesn't want to take the time to walk the congregation through it all. There are times in my pride that I want to be able to lead and decide with the elders without having to take counsel from the church or submit to their judgment. But those are not good reasons for with-holding information or acting unilaterally. In fact, I have never regretted taking anything to our church for discussion/voting. Nor have we had a divisive discussion or anything except a unanimous vote (so far).

4. We do have a time for "other business" at the end of our meetings. Usually people are hungry and their children need naps, so we don't get a lot of action here. I think this time helps the members see themselves as responsible for the church. Like anything in congregationalism, it can go wrong if there are problems in the church. But if the church is healthy and leadership is functioning well, you shouldn't be getting a lot of A-bombs dropped on you at the end of members meetings.

Anyway, thanks for getting the ball rolling on this. I'm interested to hear the thoughts of others.

In their book How People Change, Tim Lane and Paul David Tripp lay out seven counterfeit gospels.

1. Formalism. “I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.”

2. Legalism. “I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.”

3. Mysticism. “I am engaged in the incessant pursuit of an emotional experience with God. I live for the moments when I feel close to him, and I often struggle with discouragement when I don’t      feel that way. I may change churches often, too, looking for one that will give me what I’m looking for.”

4. Activism. “I recognize the missional nature of Christianity and am passionately involved in fixing this broken world. But at the end of the day, my life is more of a defense of what’s right than a joyful pursuit of Christ.”

5. Biblicism. “I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge.”

6. Therapism. “I talk a lot about the hurting people in our congregation, and how Christ is the only answer for their hurt. Yet even without realizing it, I have made Christ more Therapist than Savior. I view hurt as a greater problem than sin—and I subtly shift my greatest need from my moral failure to my unmet needs." 

7. “Social-ism.” “The deep fellowship and friendships I find at church have become their own idol. The body of Christ has replaced Christ himself, and the gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships.”

How many of these do you recognize in your own heart? How can we help our congregations to recognize them in their hearts through preaching, discipling, and counseling?

I’ve told the story here before of the raucous business meeting at our church where we had a knock-down-drag-out congregational . . . discussion . . . on whether the baptistry curtains ought to be left open during the Sunday morning services so people could see the mural of the Jordan River. We actually voted on that question, and we lost a few members over it, too. (The curtains stayed closed.) 

There’s an interesting pattern I’ve noticed in evangelical churches: The smaller the church, the more frequent the votes. Most of the mega-churches in the evangelical world don’t seem to do a whole lot of congregational voting. They have one or two or three members’ meetings a year (if that), and it’s usually to do massive business like buying land or adopting a multi-million dollar budget or calling a senior pastor or something. But that’s about it. The congregation doesn’t do a whole lot. Many of those large churches don’t even have the congregation vote new members in, or on cases of discipline. Those things are handled by the leadership.

It’s different in small churches—much different. In a small church, you generally have to vote on everything. Our church, for example, used to have a requirement that any expenditure over $150 had to be congregationally approved! Even worse, a member could make a motion during “New Business” to do just about anything under the sun, and the congregation would have to deliberate and vote on it. Keep the curtains open, close them, instruct the nursery director to buy a new puzzle, instruct her to take back the one she bought last week. “I move we use Welch’s grape juice instead of the Kroger brand—it’s kinda brown looking.” “I move we amend that motion to say Juicy-Juice instead of Welch’s due to the differentiation in the price.” "I disagree. Juicy-Juice is brown, too." And so on it went. 

In the years since those halcyon days, our church has moved to an elder-led, congregational government, and we’ve had to think through the question of just how elder-led the church ought to be. What kinds of things should the church vote on? Everything? Nothing? What decisions should the elders and other church officers be able to make without a congregational vote? I would argue (right now, that is—I could be convinced otherwise; that’s what blogs are for, right? Discussion.) that there are really only five things a congregation ought to vote on, three of which I see clear biblical instruction about, and the other two of which are mainly prudential. Here they are:

1. Membership and Discipline. Two sides of the same coin. The congregation as a whole ought to decide who is a part of its fellowship and who is not. This is clearest in the biblical teaching about church discipline. In Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5, it is the church as a whole that makes the decision to exclude someone from its membership. Moreover, they perform that discipline by voting. (Note Paul’s use of the word “majority” in 2 Corinthians 2:6.) Given that, it only makes sense that the congregation ought to vote also on who comes into its fellowship. 

2. Leadership. I don’t see anything explicit in the New Testament—either by command or example—about the church voting on its elders. But it’s clear that they did elect, or at least somehow “choose from among themselves,” their own deacons in Acts 6. From that, and also from the fact that an erring elder is to be rebuked publicly (1 Timothy 5:20), I’d argue that the congregation as a whole ought to choose its own leaders. They ought to vote on their elders and deacons.

3. Doctrine. In Galatians 1, Paul holds the whole congregation accountable for what is taught to it. If false teaching is allowed to take root in the church, it’s the whole congregation’s fault. Moreover, the church as a whole is to anathematize false gospels, as well as the teachers who teach false gospels. Thus I believe the congregation ought to vote on adopting or changing its statement of faith. 

[4. Budget.] This is less clear to me than the others, but I still think it’s wise for the church to vote on its budget. That’s partly for legal reasons, and partly because it just seems good for the church to “own” its spending plan. The fact is, they’re going to “vote” on the church’s spending plan anyway, with their giving or lack of it, so it seems good to do it up front. Besides, perhaps there is some biblical precedent for this--even if not formal--in the Macedonians “pleading” with Paul to let them spend money for a contribution to the poor saints in Jerusalem. (See Romans 15:26 and 2 Cor. 8:3-4.)

[5. Rules.] This is also a matter of prudence. Though there are obviously some rules a church of Jesus Christ is bound by Scripture to follow, and you don't see churches voting on by-laws in the New Testament, it seems a good idea to have the church formally agree to the rules by which it will operate. That means voting on its own constitution and/or by-laws. For our church, this meant voting to adopt a constitution that fairly strictly (though not entirely) limits congregational votes to these five areas. In other words, the congregation voted to delegate a whole lot of decision-making responsibility to its officers, keeping in its own hands only those things which Scripture explicitly or implicitly puts in its hands—along with a couple of other things for prudential reasons.

The result of all this has been that our Members’ Meetings are wonderfully encouraging times now. The congregation knows where it must exercise authority, it knows what it has delegated to others, it votes on the important matters it is charged with voting on, we hear reports from officers about other decisions that have been made and implemented, and we don’t get bogged down with “bitty” little motions, discussions, and votes under “New Business.”

In fact, the church has learned over time that most motions from the floor will actually be ruled out of order. That’s because most of those motions, unless they fall in the categories above, would finally amount to the congregation “micromanaging” a decision that it has already—in its constitution and election of officers—delegated to someone else, usually to the elders or to a particular deacon. So for example, if a motion were made from the floor to buy a new microphone for the pulpit, the moderator would likely rule that motion out of order, gently explaining that the church already delegated authority over such decisions to its Deacon of Sound, and it cannot now step in to micromanage them. (Though the Deacon of Sound probably ought to take a close look at the microphone then!) Same thing if someone moved to forbid the Deacon of Sound to buy a new microphone: That would be out of order, because decisions like that were delegated to that officer, and the congregation should not micromanage after it has delegated. 

Of course, there are always safety valves in case of emergencies. The elders can immediately remove a rogue Deacon of Sound, for example. Furthermore, the church itself can unilaterally and immediately remove its elders and/or deacons if it needs to (that’s #2 above), and it can also change its constitution (#5). But all those of course are emergency actions, and the church would only use them in dire situations.

At any rate, I’m curious to hear from you other guys: Do your churches do something different from this? Do they vote on more things? Fewer? Are there potential landmines in thinking like this? Is it wiser to have a fully open congregationalism, where the church as a whole can do just about anything under “New Business?” Looking forward to your thoughts…