10 Tips for Hosting a College Mission

1. Run something for every group. 

When you're thinking about what events to put on, have one special event for everyone to invite someone to. Ask the congregation to commit to church and one other event. A parenting seminar, a men's breakfast, youth group, a jazz night.

Churches may have moved away from events as the focal point of evangelism (to either the Sunday gathering or personal evangelism), but a well-chosen event can still gather people who wouldn't come to a regular service. 

There's no need to run 'special events' though. Instead it is often better to leverage existing structures evangelistically. Have an event in mind other than church, for every member to attend and invite people to.

If you're struggling for things to do, don't underestimate how willing other Christian organisations are for you to do stuff for them. Ask your local uni, ask your local nursing home, ask the other Scripture teachers if you can run an all-in assembly. A tired Scripture teacher will think you are a heavenly being sent straight from the bosom of the Father, and they'd be right.

2. Run some things but not everything. 

Similar to my point above, some missions suffer from too many events. I like the attitude of shoot broadly and something will hit the target, but it's not the most efficient use of time and energy. The outcome can be either poor attendance across the board or one big fail. The events you cut will focus attention on the main thing. Having in mind the intended audience for each event can help this. 

3. Evangelism every day.

There is not a day that should go by without every team member talking to someone about Jesus: whether from the church or a stranger. If it's a light day, do some door-knocking. Or organise for fringe people or young Christians to have a lunch meeting with one student from college.

However one caveat: door-knocking and walk-up are draining. Don't label every spare minute on the timetable as '?door-knocking?', unless you label every spare minute of your week as '?emotionally draining pastoral situation?'.

Better to have fewer but focused times.

4. Trust the college.

Please let the students preach. If you won't have a college student preach, then either re-evaluate your view of ministry or cancel the team's visit. Seriously. You need to trust that the college won't put someone up there who can't do the job. Your pulpit should be protected. Not letting anyone else into it is not the way. If you want to protect your pulpit ask for the student to preach to you 3 weeks before mission for evaluation. You are training people to be public theologians. If your professionalism is of such a level that a student can't get a go, then repent of your perfectionism and stop neglecting your responsibility to train the next generation.

I also think the lecturers need to say no to speaking gigs unless all the final year students already have spots. I don't care if Con Campbell is the chaplain. We would all prefer to hear Con preach. The guy is so dreamy. I'd pay Con to read the newspaper to me if he would. But the mission is not for the lecturers to get experience.

5. It's a week for practise, not theory.

Minimise the training sessions for students where you espouse your view of ministry. We'll get a better understanding of your ministry philosophy by seeing what you do rather than you telling us what you do. It's still important to have an opportunity for students to hear your philosophy and to be able to question why you do certain things. But pick 2 things that you think are unique to your ministry and teach us on those.

Ideally first years should be asked to do very little, perhaps a testimony. Second years a testimony/run an event such as Scripture seminar. Third years smaller speaking spots. Fourth years preaching evangelistically.

6. Think bigger than the week.

Make sure the students pass on every contact they get and record everything of interest, and make us believe you'll follow up.

The students don't want to be paratroopers, parachuting in for a quick job and then throwing a stun grenade and being helicoptered out. The best missions get on board existing ministries.

If you want to focus on Easter instead of College Mission, don't neglect the benefit of having the college students present. Why not make it a month of big questions starting with mission and leading up to Easter?

7. De-brief, but be brief. 

There should be no more than 24 hours go by without every event being de-briefed, and people prayed for. But don't spend too long. Better to read the Bible and pray than talk for hours about what worked and didn't. Most the time you're simply discussing people's different ministry philosophies than the actual event itself.

8. Involve the congregation a little bit. 

At every point you can, involve congregation members. But remember the students aren't all experts, so assume some of them will be less competent than the congregation. Don't expect every college student to be partnered with a local for walk-up evangelism. At most 2 students to every congregation member, so that college members can still be partnered together.

9. Ask for a spanking.

The students have fresh eyes and will see things about your ministry that you don't, or worse still things you do see but turn a blind eye to. Ask the team to have a whinge before they leave about everything they'd do differently. Most of this will be simply different ministry philosophies again, but there will be half a dozen things they rightly critique you on.

10. Rest is not optional.

A day off for everyone together. A session off every day. An optional extra day off for the women if they need it.

Plan this from the beginning.

On one mission I went on the guys had an opt-out event on the 'day-off'. Absolutely despicable. I chatted to one guy on team who said his wife was struggling at home but he felt he should go to the event anyway.

Pick a day and then protect it.

Especially if it's a residential mission it is helpful to have the whole team day off together.

Think of days in threes: there is the morning, the afternoon, the evening. One of these should be free for everyone. Don't label it 'prep time'. If the students choose to prepare in that time, it's their business.

The percentage of women on mission to men is inversely proportional to the amount of women's events. Give the women a second day-off that they can decline if they want.

My Stand-Up Comedy Routine from the Moore College Revue 2012

Reflections on my stand-up debut:

I've always wanted to have a go at stand-up comedy. I was working up a ten-minute routine to try at an open-mic night when I was a university student but never quite polished the routine and so it never happened.

But I finally got the courage to have a dig this year at the Moore College Revue. You won't find a more forgiving and generous audience so in my mind it was pretty much now or never.

Despite almost throwing up with nerves beforehand... they laughed.

And not just a bit. In fact, to my great surprise, they laughed a lot.

I'd prepared the routine in four sections in case I bombed so that I could walk off at any point with a clearly defined end. But they laughed.

And I must say, the feeling was very addictive.

But I think my debut will also end up being my retirement. Why spoil a good thing?

Disclaimer:
Current Moore College students it seems understood about 95% of the jokes
Recent Moore College students will get about 80% of the jokes
Former Moore College students will get about 50% of the jokes
Christians in general will get about 30% of the jokes
Others 5%



Also, if you were there on the night, I'd suggest not watching it again. There's something special about 'the moment' (and I mean the whole night) which does not transfer to film.

This video is intended primarily for my classmates who missed the Revue, and for Nathan from St-Eutychus, who if he had come to MTC rather than QTC would have owned the Revue.

Lastly, long-term readers may pick up a few bits that appeared in early form here on the blog.

'The Holman' from Moore Revue 2012

If this song doesn't convince you to move to the Holman Bible, nothing will.



A great night at the Moore College Revue 2012 'Looking for a Leader' last night. There are so many wonderfully gifted people at MTC. And I love it that once a year we all get together and use the gifts that are usually employed to talk to people about Jesus, and use them to have a sanctified laugh at one another.

2.5 hours of non-stop hilarity.

Jonah 2

Jonah prays.

And the commentaries say completely opposite things.

• The prayer is selfish and gracious
• The prayer is a condemnation of Jonah and also redemption.
• The prayer is a single prayer of thanksgiving, and two prayers - one of thanksgiving, one of lamentation.
• The prayer is prayed inside the fish, and it's written and refers to events after his deliverance back to dry land
• The great fish is an act of judgment and an act of salvation.
• There is both repentance, and no indication of repentance within the prayer.

For the record, I will make very little reference to the scholarly disagreements in tomorrow's sermon, because I am convinced a straightforward reading of the passage shows that the prayer of Jonah in Jonah 2 is:

• Mostly gracious (with some suggestion of a slightly skewed view of grace which will come up later)
• A redemption of Jonah in light of his previous actions in chapter 1
• It is a single prayer of thanksgiving.
• Prayed inside the fish.
• And thus the act of being swallowed is not further judgment, but as Jonah acknowledges an act of salvation
• And repentance is found in the appeal to the temple. As the temple does not represent the presence of God in this instance as most commentators suggest, for in Jonah 1:9, Jonah declares God is the God of heaven and maker of everything, rather the temple represents the place of sacrifice where sinners turn to have their sins forgiven.

The NIV...

I really hope I'm not going to become one of those guys. You know the ones who always complain about Bible translations, assume they know more about the original languages than professional translators, and always undermine people's confidence in their translations by "correcting" them through the speakers intricate knowledge of the original language.

But I'm preaching from the NIV (1984) of Jonah 1 tomorrow. Virtually every interesting and grammatically significant aspect of the Hebrew has been massacred in translation.

I am very thankful for the strengths of the NIV and its role in making the Bible accessible to a wide readership. But with my frustration levels, I'd almost be better off not looking at the Hebrew.

For example;

(Direct translation)

v1 Arise Go and Call Out

v3 And Jonah arose to flee

v6 Arise, Call Out

NIV (1984)

v1 Go ... and preach

v3 But Jonah ran away

v6 Get up and call out

(Direct translation)

v4 the LORD hurled a great wind

v5 they (the sailors) hurled the cargo

v15 they hurled him (Jonah) into the sea

NIV (1984)

v4 the LORD sent a great wind

v5 they threw the cargo

v15 they threw him overboard

It's not about inaccurate translations. The NIV has faithfully captured the essence of the original. It's just as a reflection of the Hebrew precision to deliberately repeat words, it is not as helpful as perhaps it could be. I find myself wanting to keep correcting the translation, which could be avoided with another version that is balanced a bit more towards the original vocabulary.

The ESV does a pretty good job. I haven't the time to check any others.

End rant.

(And I promise not to do that again for a while... or at least until my Jonah 2 sermon next week.)

Ecclesiology: A distinct, but not discrete theological locus

I'm not sure if this is of interest to anyone or not, but in the absence of any real content around here, this is that Doctrine 3 essay I was referring to yesterday.

The Question:

‘Until the Reformation was forced to answer the question, ‘where can I find a true church?’, it was by no means obvious to theologians that ecclesiology was or had a definite theological locus, was a discrete topic of systematic theology. For example, Thomas Aquinas moves directly from discussing Christology (Summa Theologia part III, questions 1-59) to the sacraments (questions 60-90).’

On what ground may we affirm that Holy Scripture teaches a distinct doctrine of the church, i.e. an ecclesiology? What is its essential shape and content? What may be the limitations of such a theological construction on our part?

Essay

The Bible teaches a distinct ecclesiology which proceeds from Christology; a distinct doctrine, but not a discrete one. The church begins with the death and resurrection of Jesus as the Christ, and the subsequent sending of the Holy Spirit as Jesus builds his church. However, this Christological locus stands as the culmination of the unfolding and progressive revelation of the Old Testament people of God, gathered around God’s word having been saved by the Spirit-filled Christ. Furthermore, it remains an eschatological hope as the current heavenly and spiritual gathering through union with Christ—expressed in physical gatherings on earth—will be revealed to all. A distinct treatment of ecclesiology arising from Christology through peculiar reference to pneumatology and soteriology, ensures two errors are avoided: firstly of conflating the church with Christ, and secondly of separating ecclesiology from Jesus in a way that is foreign to Scripture. From its Trinitarian basis, the church is marked by unity and holiness. Thus the distinction between Christ and the objects of his mercy is maintained, and ecclesiology is not incorrectly viewed as extrinsic to theology.

The beginning: ‘I will build my church’

Locating the beginning of the church is problematic, as this essay will argue the founding of the church comes as the fulfillment of motifs established throughout the Old Testament. Nevertheless, the church can be said to begin with the person and work of Jesus Christ. The first reference to the church in the New Testament comes when Jesus promises, ‘I will build my church’ (Matt 16:18). Jesus declares that the church is established, grown, and possessed by him. Such a close connection between Jesus and the church already suggests difficulties in devising an ecclesiology separate from Christology. And yet the church does not begin with this statement itself rather it is initiated when after Jesus’ death and resurrection as the Christ, he pours out his Spirit at Pentecost.

The church is built upon the declaration of Jesus as the Christ. The rock upon which Jesus will build his church (Matt 16:18), though traditionally understood to be a reference to Peter himself is—particularly in light of the Old Testament background—referring to Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ (Matt 16:16–20).[1] Jesus then explains the Christ must, ‘be killed, and on the third day be raised’ (Matt 16:21). Thus Jesus fulfilling his role as the Christ is connected with his death and resurrection. Consequently the church is built not only on the declaration that Jesus is Christ, but on Jesus being the Christ, which begins with his earthly ministry but is completed in his death and resurrection. The church of God is, ‘obtained with his own blood’ (Acts 20:28).[2] Jesus in his resurrection was raised as head of the church, ‘And [God] put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church’ (Eph 1:22).

Jesus being the Christ leads to exploring how the benefits obtained are secured by others as they are incorporated into Christ. From the inception of the church, ‘Christology logically proceeds to ecclesiology’.[3] The first conversions after the giving of the Holy Spirit follow Peter’s announcement that, ‘God has made [Jesus] both Lord and Christ’ (Acts 2:36), and the required response is to, ‘Repent and be baptized [[…]] in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’ (Acts 2:38). Similarly, the description of Christ in Colossians concludes with the inclusion of the believers, ‘And you [[…]] he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him’ (Col 1:21–22 following 1:15–20). This benefit of the cross, redeeming people from the penalty of sin, occurs through a representative union of believers with Christ (1 Pet 2:24; Eph 1:3–14, 2:4–6). And it is from this soteriological basis that believers are brought into unity with one another as the church (Eph 2:16; 1 Cor 10:17). The gospel of Jesus as Lord implies a people who are ruled, but even more the gospel itself, ‘generates a community called the church’.[4]

The intricate connection between Christ and the church is emphasized through many of the metaphors used.[5] However it is the imagery of Christ as the head and the church as his body that, due to its close affinity with Jesus himself, carries peculiar force (Col 2:19; Eph 5:23; 1 Cor 12:27). The ‘body of Christ’ metaphor is employed in various ways, such as ‘one body in Christ (Rom 12:5); it is a body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27); it is the body of Christ (Eph 4:12)’.[6] But predominantly as head; Christ leads his people and the body has total dependence on Christ. ‘Christ is indeed properly called the sole Head for he alone rules by his authority and in his own name’.[7] The extent to which the church is the body of Christ is limited as, ‘The church is risen with Christ, but it is not risen as Christ’.[8] But the unity must be maintained, for though the mystery is profound, the relationship between Christ and the church is intricate and ordered. The two must not be conflated as, ‘theology must not detract from the place of Christ at the centre of the gospel message. Yet to speak of the work of Christ it is necessary to speak of its result: a restored humanity, with Christ as its head.’[9]

As seen in the chronological fulfillment of Jesus’ declaration, ‘I will build my church’, and the inspired teaching of the New Testament authors, ecclesiology is not to be thought of as a discrete theological locus, but instead flows from Christology. Whilst Christ can be separated from the church, the church cannot be separated from Christ.[10] But though ecclesiology is not a discrete doctrine, is it distinct?

The beginning is the end: The gathered people of God

Ecclesiology as a distinct doctrine arises from the prominence of Old Testament promise and fulfillment regarding the gathered people of God. The unfolding narrative recounts God gathering a people to himself and the connection between this and the New Testament church requires exploration. The New Testament itself initiates such study of the Old Testament people of God as the church—or at least proto-church—as Israel is called, ‘the congregation [ἐκκλησία] in the wilderness’ (Acts 7:38).

God’s desire to create a people for himself is evident from God’s first command to, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen 1:28). The entry of sin into the world brings with it curses which hamper the task of building a people (Gen 3:16). The renewed hope for a people of God arises with God’s promise to Abram that, ‘I will make of you a great nation’ (Gen 12:2). Though Israel expands rapidly in slavery in Egypt (Exod 1:5; 12:37), the consummation of the relationship of Israel as God’s people occurs through God’s saving act of redemption from slavery as, ‘I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment. I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God’ (Exod 6:7–8 emphasis mine; see also Lev 26:12). This saving action initiates the ongoing gathering of God’s people to hear his covenant word. ‘Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me (Deut 4:10).’[11] The gathering of the people of God to hear covenant words continues once entry to the land has been granted (Josh 8:34, 2 Chr 28:8), as well as during the reigns of the kings (2 Chr 20:5, 14; 23:3; 29:23–32; 30:2–25).[12] The post-exilic restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah likewise gathers the people of God together to hear the word of God (Neh 8). The Old Testament portrays the redeemed people of God, gathered around God’s word.

The Old Testament gathering of God’s people is punctuated by a scattering, as God’s punishment for Israel’s disobedience. This is foreshadowed early in the law that, ‘the lord will scatter you among the peoples,  and you will be left few in number among the nations where the lord will drive you’ (Deut 4:27). Also foreshadowed though is a re-gathering (Deut 30:3), which is explored by a number of the prophets such as Micah who prophesies that, ‘the mountain of the house of the lord will be established [[…]] people shall flow to it, and many nations shall come (Mic 4:1–2).’[13] This expectation came to be associated with the Christ who would, ‘assemble the banished of Israel’ (Isa 11:12),  and through the servant, ‘Israel might be gathered to [God]’ (Isa 49:4).[14] Although the people of God motif is significant in terms of volume, it is primarily its precedence in the overarching narrative that necessitates its study. The relationship between God and his people demonstrates that there is an ontological dependence of the people of God, on God. He brings them into being and gives essential shape to the gathering in their midst through his word and presence. This relational dependence of the people on God for their generation, sustenance and shape ensures ecclesiology is not a discrete doctrine, and yet conversely also reinforces a distinct treatment because the relationship, ‘Even in its mutuality, is always a miracle of unilateral grace’.[15]

The New Testament church stands as the culmination of the Old Testament redeemed people of God gathered around his word. The correlation between the two must hold both a continuation and a clear disjunction. The promises for Israel do not necessarily apply to the church, because Israel is rejected in favour of the church (Rom 9).[16] Conversely, many of the descriptions of Israel are applied to the New Testament church (2 Cor 6:16; 1 Pet 2:9–10), so that the church is not merely the, ‘historical continuation of Old Testament Israel,’[17] but the, ‘successor of Israel’, both Jew and Greek linked in Jesus through faith in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gal 3:7; 29).[18] The true Israelite people of God are revealed through the great pruning (Rom 11:20), and the Gentiles are grafted in (Rom 11:17). The New Testament church begins with the Christ’s death and resurrection and its benefits applied, but this beginning is the culmination of a larger motif of God gathering his people. Such an understanding of the, ‘particular church in the framework of the universal history of God’s dealings with the world,’[19] gives full meaning to the church and does not allow ecclesiology to be removed from its current function in the world. The church, ‘is itself standing in the midst of that movement, not above it and not at its end.’[20]

The beginning is not the end: The eschatological church

Though the initial gathering of God’s people under Christ appears as the culmination of the Old Testament people of God, what is the relationship between the church at Pentecost and subsequent gatherings? A church (ἐκκλησία) at its essence is a gathering (Acts 19:32).[21] However, in light of the physical necessity of gathering, what is the link between different gatherings of believers? In the New Testament, church is used to describe the local gathering.[22] Each local gathering as constituting in itself the church of God (1 Cor 1:2).[23] Paul writes, ‘To the church of God that is in Corinth [[…]] called to be saints together with all those who in every place  call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor 1:1–2). Whilst Paul acknowledges the local gathering has a broader link to other believers, the language of church remains with the local gathering. Indeed, to talk of a church being ‘in all places’ is oxymoronic. Jesus’ church is where Christ is, and on earth it is where two or three are gathered in his name (Matt 18:20).[24]  ‘At each local [[…]] celebration where Jesus Christ is himself present the whole global fellowship of Christians finds manifestation. For where Jesus Christ is, there is the whole ("catholic") church.’[25] This stands in contrast to the Roman Catholic teaching which structurally, ‘knows itself as the only Church of Christ.’[26]

And yet there is a complexity implied in the relationship between believers in different gatherings. If the church is where Christ is, then diligence must be paid to the heavenly gathering. Believers have been raised with Christ and are seated with him at the right hand of God spiritually (Col 3:1–3; see also Eph 2:6; 1:20). ‘We are participants in the [[…]] gathering around God’s throne which Christ is forming in the presence of God.’[27] This assembly in heaven is a heavenly reality already experienced as, ‘you have come to  Mount Zion and to the city of the living God,  the heavenly Jerusalem, and to  innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to  the assembly  of the firstborn who are  enrolled in heaven’ (Heb 12:22–23). Yet this current spiritual reality still remains something that is to be revealed upon Christ’s return (Col 3:4), and the great heavenly gathering remains an eschatological hope (Rev 7:9–10; Matt 24:31; Rev 21:1–3).

The essential shape of the church is both heavenly and earthly. Involvement in the heavenly gathering draws believers together in the earthly gathering, so that it is not, ‘two gatherings, one unseen, the other local and visible, but they are the same fellowship both heavenly in God’s presence and at the same time local and physical because we live in a physical environment.’[28] The local gathering is a, ‘provisional representation of human fellowship in the coming divine dominion’.[29] The benefit of the category of the eschatological church is that it, ‘keeps ecclesiology from becoming a mere affirmation of a historical institution.’[30] However, such strong reference to the spiritual reality can have the danger of introversion, and believers must recognise that, ‘Until Christ comes again in glory, the church is engaged in an unceasing struggle with the dislodged powers of darkness’.[31]

The current presence of Jesus in individual believers through his Spirit protects from overemphasising the gathering. Any gathering is a collection of individuals as, ‘you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house’ (1 Pet 2:5; see also 2 Cor 6:16). The desire for God to dwell with his people is established in the Old Testament and is represented by the temple (Exod 30:34; 1 Kgs 8:20–29). The Spirit of God in believers is the basis upon them being collectively the new temple (1 Pet 2:4–10; Eph 2:19–22). The final dwelling of God with man is also part of the eschatological picture of the eschatological church (Rev 21:1–3). The Spirit testifies to the truth of Christ (1 John 5:6), initiates the gathering of the saved (Acts 2), applies the work of Jesus to believers (1 Pet 1:2; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), and is the guarantee of the heavenly inheritance (Eph 1:13–14). ‘Faith is the principal work of the Holy Spirit’.[32]

The pneumatological basis of the church demonstrates the problem of confusing Christ with his church, and the Roman Catholic understanding of grace flowing down through the ecclesiastical structures, rather than from Jesus to believers is one example.[33] This is not to imply indifference to the earthly institution, but rightly place it as a necessary consequence of the spiritual reality, which begins with individuals. And thus, ‘The gift of the Spirit is not just for individual believers but aims at the building up of the fellowship of believers, at the founding and the constant giving of new life to the church’.[34] Thus, Protestantism, ‘makes the relation of individuals to the church dependent on their relation to Christ’ rather than Roman Catholic teaching which, ‘makes the relation of individuals to Christ dependent on their relation to the church.’[35]

Consequently membership in the church is defined confessionally, as the declaration of Jesus as Lord is believed within the hearts of individuals by the work of the Spirit. This pattern is established at Pentecost (Acts 2:36–41), and Jesus builds his church on the confession (Matt 16:18). It remains the pattern of faith through the early church who had, ‘faith in Christ Jesus’ (Col 1:4). The servants of Christ preach Christ and him crucified (Col 1:7; 1 Cor 2:2). It is also the vision of the church in heaven as the multitude gathers around Jesus, the slain Lamb (Rev 7:9–10). The church likewise is, ‘built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone’ (Eph 2:20). And the apostles as the bearers of the gospel message are the ones upon whom the church is to be shaped, as the early church, ‘devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers’ (Acts 2:42). ‘The essence, life, and nature of Christendom is not a physical assembly, but an assembly of hearts in one faith.’[36]

The church is invisible because, ‘we must enter it by faith, and faith does not belong to the realm of appearances.’[37] This is what Calvin describes as, ‘the congregation of elect people.’[38] Indeed, ‘The Lord alone knows those who are his’ (2 Tim 2:19). But the universal church is also visible, for though some aspects are hidden, ‘It is an observable social reality which consists of all professing Christians, and as such belongs to the realm of appearances quite as definitely as its organizations do.’[39] There is potential that defining the church confessionally, minimises the importance of church membership.[40] But though it is possible for one to be a member of the visible church but not of the invisible, it is unlikely that a member of the invisible church would not want to be a member of the visible church.[41] ‘The Christian Church takes shape through the coming together of regenerate individuals to form a system of mutual interaction and co-operation.’[42]

A distinct treatment of ecclesiology arises because the church has a role in protecting and promulgating the message of Jesus as Lord. ‘The church is because God is and acts thus’.[43] It is, ‘through the church, the manifold wisdom of God might be now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places’ (Eph 3:10). The church is the sole, ‘entrance to life.’[44] Ecclesiology then is not purely extrinsic, instead as Calvin says, ‘So powerful is participation in the church, that it keeps us in the society of God.’[45] Furthermore, ‘Because Jesus Christ has risen, because God’s revelation and testimonies are, therefore, given to the Church, it receives and holds His commission, which means that it has Himself in its midst as the Lord of its speaking.’[46] , and there remains value of a distinct doctrine of ecclesiology. The church is the means by which God chooses to work in the world through his Spirit. Historically, the treatment of ecclesiology as a distinct theological locus is often thought to begin at the Reformation. For example, John Calvin separates his ecclesiology from his Christology under the topic of ‘the external means [[…]] by which God invites us into the society of Christ and holds us therein.’[47] It is also in this light that Calvin discusses sacraments as one of the other external means. Whilst a distinct ecclesiology is not directly a concern of earlier theologians, their emphasis on defending Christology is locating the true church as confessional in nature. For example, Cyprian in speaking of those who had denied Jesus under persecution, spoke of how the lapsed see themselves as outside the church by means of their denial.[48]

Finally, there is a Trinitarian basis for the church which is reflected relationally. The church is a gathering of believers created by the living God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[49] For, ‘Faith perceives God in Christ and this perception is itself the power of the Spirit.’[50] This is seen in the benediction in 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 13:14), as well as Jesus’ high priestly prayer (John 17:26). However, such statements must be tempered with the eternal perfection of God, which does not require the addition of creatures and highlights the ‘asymmetric relationship of ecclesiology’.[51] God in his perfection, ‘may choose to consecrate other agents for his service [[…]] yet such consecration does not indicate some lack in God, but rather the mercy with which, in his fullness, he elects to dignify creatures by electing them for his service.’[52] Such movements to outsiders, ‘is not the first but second movement of the being of God. The first movement is the eternally mobile repose of the Holy Trinity.’[53] The emphasis on holiness (Exod 19:6; Lev 11:44; 19:2; Col 3:12, Eph 5:26–32), and unity (John 17:21ff; 1 Cor 11:17ff; Eph 4:4-6), which are to be two marks of the church arise from this basis.

As soon as churches are organised, an ecclesiology is required. However, the relationship between ecclesiological theory must be connected with evangelical theology. Reflecting on where the church stands in time along the biblical theological narrative enables such an ecclesiology to arise from, and be defined by, Christology. A biblical theology of the ‘people of God’ sees the church of Christ as the redeemed people of God, gathered around his Word through the work of the Spirit-filled Saviour, spiritually united with Jesus but expressed in local gatherings, united and holy as a reflection of this participation in the Trinity. This keeps Jesus at the centre, not conflating the church with his being, nor removing the church from its essential connection to the Christ.

---

[1] D Broughton Knox, Selected Works: v. 2 (Matthias Media, 2003), 24–26.

[2] See also Eph 5:23–27

[3] Peter T. O’Brien, Understanding the Basic Themes of Colossians, Philemon (W Pub Group, 1991), 49.

[4] Michael S. Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Zondervan, 2011), 828.

[5] There are over 30 metaphors for Christ and the Church, for example, a flock and a shepherd (John 10, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 2:25), a bride and a bridegroom (Eph 5:25–31), and the temple and cornerstone (1 Pet 2:5–7).

[6] Edmund P. Clowney, ‘The Biblical Theology of the Church’, Beginning With Moses: 26, Cited 5 Apr 2012, Online: http://beginningwithmoses.org/oldsite/articles/btchurch1.htm.

[7] John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNeill; Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), IV. 6. 10.

[8] John Webster, ‘The Church and the Perfection of God’, in The Community of the Word: toward an evangelical ecclesiology (ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 94.

[9] Oliver O’Donovan, On the Thirty-Nine Articles (2nd ed.; SCM Press, 2011), 93.

[10] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (ed. Geoffrey W Bromiley et al.; Study ed.; London: T & T Clar, 2009), IV. 2. 655.

[11] See also Exod 12:16; Deut 5:22, 9:10, 10:4, 18:16

[12] Clowney, ‘The Biblical Theology of the Church’, 4.

[13] This is reflected upon at the beginning of Nehemiah (1:8-11) as well as in Psalms such as Ps 106:47, Ps 147:2

[14] This language is echoed as Jesus longs to gather Israel as a hen gathers her brood (Luke 13:34) and ultimately promises to, ‘gather his elect [[…]] from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven’ (Mark 13:26).

[15] Webster, ‘The Church and the Perfection of God’, 76.

[16] David Lorne Smith, All God’s People: A Theology of the Church (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 202.

[17] James I. Packer, ‘The Nature of the Church’, in Basic Christian Doctrines (ed. Carl F. Henry; Baker Book House, 1975), 242.

[18] Smith, All God’s people, 323.

[19] Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution of Messianic Ecclesiology (London: SCM Press, 1977), 51.

[20] Moltmann, The church in the power of the spirit, 52.

[21] I. Howard Marshall et al., eds., New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed.; InterVarsity Press, 1996), 199–200.

[22] Marshall et al., New Bible Dictionary, 199–200.

[23] See also 1 Cor 10:32; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1 Tim 3:5.

[24] Donald Robinson, Donald Robinson. Selected Works: Assembling God’s People v.1 (ed. Peter G. Bolt and Mark D. Thompson; Australian Church Record, 2008), 213.

[25] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology (vol. 3; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 103.

[26] Karl Rahner, Theological investigations (vol. 2; London: Darton, 1961), 25.

[27] Knox, Selected Works, 20.

[28] Knox, Selected Works, 89.

[29] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 25.

[30] Horton, The Christian Faith, 832.

[31] Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Volume 2: Life, Ministry, & Hope (Harper San Francisco, 1982), 150–1.

[32] Calvin, Calvin, III. 1. 4.

[33] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (ed. John Bolt and John Vriend; vol. 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academi, 2003), 274.

[34] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 12.

[35] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 24.

[36] Martin Luther, ‘On the Papacy in Rome Against the Most Celebrated Romanist in Leipzig’, in Luther’s Works, Volume 39: Church and Ministry I (ed. Eric W. Gritsch and Helmut T. Lehmann; vol. 39; Fortress Press, 1970), 65.

[37] O’Donovan, On the Thirty-Nine Articles, 90.

[38] Calvin, Calvin, IV, 1, 3.

[39] O’Donovan, On the Thirty-Nine Articles, 90.

[40] Smith, All God’s people, 336.

[41] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 27.

[42] Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian faith (1st Harper Torchbook ed. / introduction by Richard R. Niebuhr.; (Harper torchbooks; New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 115.

[43] Webster, ‘The Church and the Perfection of God’, 76.

[44] Saint Irenaeus, St Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies (ed. John J Dillon and Dominic J Unger; Ancient Christian Writers No 55-; New York, N.Y.: Paulist Pres, 1992), 3. 4. 1.

[45] Calvin, Calvin, IV. 1. 3.

[46] Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1. 22. 749.

[47] Calvin, Calvin, IV, 1.

[48] Saint Cyprian, ‘To the Lapsed’, in The Letters of St Cyprian of Carthage, 40.

[49] Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 442.

[50] Moltmann, The church in the power of the spirit, 33.

[51] {Citation}

[52] Webster, ‘The Church and the Perfection of God’, 80.

[53] Webster, ‘The Church and the Perfection of God’.

Back-handed Compliment

I got a D.

My doctrine essay feedback:

Well this is very good.
You have thoroughly analyzed the theological topic in question.
You have identified and expounded the relevant biblical material.
You have identified or at least alluded to quite a bit of historical reflection on the topic and much of that from the original sources. 

You have established an extremely sophisticated and articulate description of the topic in answer to the question and sustained the description in a methodical and concise manner. 

I was extremely glad to see your sensitivity to the theological nature of the church, we only strayed into word studies once and not without reason. However, I would have liked to see a little more sustained reflection on any one of the historical sources you mentioned. We did get more Calvin than anyone else but it could have been more than quotes that support your description. 

I have hesitated to refer to this essay as having an argument because it was not obvious from your work - and it was very well written - that there was any serious contention towards the position your adopted. You are obviously quite skilled at research and it would have turned this essay into an excellent and possibly outstanding example of a theological essay if you had taken the time to engage at some length with an alternative position. 

Nevertheless this is very good work.

Basically, I write good, but what I did was only quoted people where they agreed with me, and so I've given the impression that my position is the only possible one to hold (It is, isn't it?) Also I've answered the question but, he's reluctant to call the essay an argument because he couldn't discern one. That one stung.

Incidentally I found this feedback extremely helpful.

Note to self: Always find someone to disagree with. A friend has suggested I choose Roman Catholics. I'm thinking Rahner.

The Archer and the Arrow could have done with a bigger target

Some unfinished thoughts which if I had time would become a proper review:

• Apart from my local ministers, Phillip Jensen has had more of an impact on me than any other preacher. And to be honest, exclusively as a preacher, he has probably shaped me more than anyone else.
• This book is clearly the result of 40 years of prayerfully seeking to proclaim God's word.
• There are some great quotes in this book. But I don't have the time to quote them here. Rebuked me a few times, and has given me much to think about (is that vague enough?)
• The Archer and the Arrow imagery is the books biggest failing. Doesn't work. It's confusing. It's an attempt to get in on the success of the trellis and the vine. The imagery there worked for its simplicity. The Archer/Arrow is complex. Doesn't really add clarity in my opinion, and is the attempt to find a unity between the chapters. It is not entirely unsuccessful, but is, in my opinion, a weakness. The desire is to portray a holistic view of preaching, but it feels forced.
• The book came out of a series of interviews that Grimmo did with Phillip. And you can feel this all the way through. It feels piecemeal. But there's enough gold in them thar hills that you don't feel like you are mining. But the genesis of the book in interviews can be felt throughout.
• I've heard Phillip talking previously of how years of preaching has wrecked his writing. Perhaps. But this book is strongest where his voice his preaching voice is most heard. And the bits that read more like sermons are the easiest to read. By the way, Phillip is wrong. Perhaps his argumentation over a book length is no longer there in the expected level of prose, but as an essayist (and the even shorter forms for his weekly 'From the Dean') are spectacular pieces of evangelical writing.
• I enjoyed getting inside Phillip's head for a week of sermon preparation on sermon on the mount.
• The strongest chapters are the first and the last, and the appendices.
• Sorry that I have not reviewed the contents here. The book is short, and readable, and easily digestible. So it's worth a read, and a ponder for yourself.

What I think would have worked better:

• Okay, if this were a proper review I wouldn't wear the hat of 'what I would do differently'. But here is what I think would have worked better.
• A larger collection of essays and short writings from Phillip on anything mildly related to preaching. Kind of like those "In honour of...." books that have a series of mildly related essays. But instead of being in honour of, they are all written by phillip, or even co-authored with others like Grimmo.
• This would make it feel like the chat around the fireplace. Or the bit more polished question time. Two places where Phillip's deep-thinking, and razor sharp rhetoric come to the fore.
• I think this approach could still follow the general flow of the book. But the shorter the pieces, and the more they sound like the sermons, the better. The best bits were the punchy bits, which weren't over-explained or reasoned. As soon as the in-depth explanation started, it blunted the force of the observation (an ironic point considering in the appendices I think, they make the point that you have greater freedom in preaching to say unbalanced things for rhetorical force).
• The book is good. The content is great. The approach I believe, could have been better.

Have you read it? Thoughts?

Style over Substance

Stott on preaching from I Believe in Preaching (pg 92):

Technique can only make us orators; if we want to be preachers, theology is what we need. If our theology is right, then we have all the basic insights we need into what we ought to be doing, and all the incentives we need to induce us to do it faithfully.

I want so badly to say that it's both/and. But I'm not convinced it is actually true as a both/and. We make too much of 'able to teach' as a way of encouraging great orators, and though we think we're serving ourselves, we are on the whole much the poorer for it.

We all know it's possible to be a great speaker, but not a great preacher. And yet it's equally true in reverse, though we're reticent to say it: it's possible to be a great preacher, but not a great speaker.

I would not class my soon to be retired principal as a great orator. But he is indeed a great preacher. Substance is a style.

What if God showed up this Sunday?

Phillip Jensen in The Archer and the Arrow:

If God guaranteed you that he would visit your church this Sunday, and bring a message to the congregation, direct from his own lips, speaking his life-changing truth to the spiritual needs of all, would you think about cutting one or two songs, and giving God some extra time? Would you ask the drama team to postpone their 20-minute re-enactment of the Prodigal Son? Would you feel the need, if you were the minister, to put aside some time after God had spoken to tell some stories that made the divine message a bit more real and relevant to the people? 

If God did turn up in all his blazing glory to deliver a message to your church, what would your reaction be? Hopefully you would scrap everything, fall trembling on your knees, and say, "Speak, Lord, your servants are listening". 

The truth is, of course, that God is with us whenever we gather, and he speaks his very words to us, Whenever we open God's Scriptures and read his words, he is with us and he speaks. And yet by our actions–by the way we run our meetings, and by the way we preach–we often demonstrate that we don't really believe in the transforming power of his words.

Ouch.