Pure Church

Margaret McSweeney guest posts over at Michael Hyatt's site and offers 12 leadership lessons from her father, Dr. Claude H. Rhea, Jr., whom she describes as "a strategic visionary, a 32-year colon cancer survivor, a member of the prestigious Royal Society of the Arts, an accomplished international lyric tenor who recorded five albums (one with the Concert Orchestra of London), a published author (including his autobiography, a cook book and two song books for children), a Dean of a Music School and a President of a College."

His lessons:

1. Creed.
   
2. Heed.
   
3. Read.
4. Knead.
   
5. Feed.
   
6. Seed.
   
7. Weed. (If you're in the Caribbean, California, or Oregon, it's not what you think :-))
   
8. Speed.
   
9. Greed.
   
10. Deed.
    
11. Exceed.
    
12. Need.
    

I liked the rhyme scheme, and the lessons are helpful, too. Read the entire brief post.

I'm reminded this morning that the foolish sins of leaders have devastating effects on the lives of God's people. In 1 Chronicles 21, King David instructs Joab and the commanders of the army to take a census of Israel. For that decision, incited by Satan (v. 1) under the sovereign control and anger of God (2 Sam. 24:1), God displays his wrath against the people of Israel.

David confesses his sin simply and powerfully: "I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing. But now, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have acted very foolishly" (v. 8). What was his great sin and the very foolish act?

It's not simply taking a census. In numerous passages of the Old Testament a census is taken. A census was taken for military purposes (Num 1:3, 45; 26:2), for the sanctuary tax (Ex. 30:11-16; 38:25-28; Num. 3:40-41), for populating the land (Num. 26:52-55; Neh. 3:40-41), for organizing the Levites (Num. 3:14-39; 1 Chr. 23), and for building the temple (2 Chr. 2:17-18). The census isn't itself the problem.

The great sin, the foolish act, was to act:

1. Independent of God's purpose. In all the other instances of census taking, there is a specific God ordained purpose for the census. The census isn't an end itself; it serves some other goal in God's expressed will. David's action was taken without consideration of the purposes of God.

2. Ignorant of God's power. Joab speaks to warn David against this act, saying, "May the Lord add to his people a hundred times as many as they are!" (3a). David blows past his friend's warning. He wants a count, and seems to think his own military prowess depends upon the size of his army and not the "size" of his God.

3. Unappreciative of God's gifts. Joab goes on to point out, "Are they [the people] not, my lord the king, all of them my lord's servants? Why then should my lord require this?" (3b). The Lord had taken David from the sheep pastures and made him king over all Israel. He had been given a stewardship, to shepherd all of the people of Israel. Even if he had an exact head count, it would not change his stewardship responsibility and privilege for every one of them. He failed to appreciate them singly and ultimately collectively.

4. Undeterred by advanced warning. Joab concludes his speech by saying, "Why should it be a cause of guilt for Israel?" (3d). The counting of the people by the head of the people would bring guilt on all of the people. Indeed, the three possible punishments all affected the entire nation (vv. 11-12). David's sin is not a victimless crime. He vaults over Joab's warning, and with him the entire nation lands in the pit of God's wrath. He awakens to his folly in v. 17, praying to God he says, "Was it not I who gave command to number the people? It is I who have sinned and done great evil. But these sheep, what have they done? Please let you hand, O Lord my God, be against me and against my father's house. But do not let the plague be on your people." The life of the leader affects the people.

I'm certain I've committed every one of David's errors and thus very great and foolish sins of my own. Before the day is over, I'll have done it several times again. I'll lose sight of God's purposes. I'll act without dependence upon His power but my own. My sinful heart will grumble in some pastoral responsibility, failing to see the precious gift and privilege it is to serve as a shepherd of God's people, entrusted to my care. And, boy, will there be warnings everywhere. But I'll not see or heed some of them. And with pride far surpassing David's, I'll act foolishly and sin greatly against the God I love. And in some way, sometimes small and sometimes significant, one or more of the sheep will be affected. I'm a great sinner, the worst I know.

But what shines through most gloriously in this chapter isn't David's sin; it's God's mercy. God's wrath is terrible, but His mercy triumphs over judgment. God sends the judgment but He also stays the sword of the angel of the Lord. He doesn't have to, but He accepts David's sacrifice. The altar David builds will one day become the Temple of Israel. The sacrifice David also will one day be surpassed by the perfect sacrifice God will make of His own Son. And by His sacrifice the Lord Jesus becomes a living stone Who makes of us living stones in a new temple to the Lord (1 Pet. 2:4-5). And one day yet future, soon to come, He'll bring us into His glorious presence where the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb will be the Temple of that place (Rev. 21:22). Shining all through 1 Chronicles 21 and the remainder of the Bible is the staggering mercy of God toward sinners!

The Lesson: Avoid foolish, sinful leadership by depending upon the purposes, power, gifts and warnings of God, as you look to the mercy of God in Christ and the hope of glory.

A "Concerned Church Member" left this important comment and question in the comments section of this post. I thought it such a good question that I decided to make the response (probably not as good as the question) a post in itself. Below is the question, followed by my response. What say others out there? "Help a brother out!"

Greg Gilbert over at Church Matters has offered the first in a series of posts called "What We're Looking for in Elders." It's an outline of a talk he and some of the elders at Third Avenue Baptist in Louisville shared with the congregation a little while back. Promises to be a thoughtful collection of posts.

The reference to Timothy helps to illustrate a theme that runs through Hebrews 13--the characteristics of true leaders and the attitude we are to develop and maintain with respect to them: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:7, ESV); "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you" (Heb. 13:17, ESV).

In his relationship with Paul, Timothy exemplified the disposition of a follower: he remembered him, observed the fruit of his faith, and imitated it. He submitted gladly to Paul's leadership, thankful for his spiritual father and for Paul's willingness to take spiritual responsibility for him and to mentor him. This was why--in words that Hebrews echoes (Heb. 13:17)--for Paul the leader to see Timothy his disciple was to be "filled with joy" (2 Tim. 1:4).

It is thus that true leaders are generally formed and developed. When leaders have never been led--not merely at the formal level, but in the sense of a heart devotion and heart submission to wise and caring leadership--they are not usually well-equipped to lead others. They may even expect a submission they have never been willing to experience themselves. "After all, I was destined for leadership, not discipleship!" they may foolishly, and often disastrously, think.

Because this is the calling of leaders--so beautifully illustrated in Timothy--it is also the reason the author of Hebrews can call us to "obey" and "submit" to them. Thus, their leadership will not be a burden ("not with groaning," as the ESV expressively translates it), but a joy (Heb. 13:17).

What if all leaders in the church were like you? Are you a walking version of the letter to the Hebrews?

Have you shown heart submission to the leadership of others? Are you prepared to suffer for others, to go through trials? Perhaps you are a ruling elder. When things get tough, rough, and sore, do you simply complain, or perhaps tend to pull back a little and look to the teaching elder/pastor as though to say, "The rough ones are for you to handle?"

Most of us are church members, not church leaders. Are you a joy or a burden? What a telling question! How sad when we count--of all things--argumentativeness, a domineering spirit, an angular personality, or an ongoing motif of cynicism about other believers as grace. Have we no idea that we make our leaders groan rather than rejoice? Should we not make this one of the questions for church membership: "Will you seek to be a source of joy to your leaders?"

Timothy is a model for both disciples and leaders. He was the latter because he had learned to be the former. And once we have been both, we, too, become living letters, versions of the great letter to the Hebrews, those in whom the Lord is "working... what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen" (Heb. 13:21). And amen!

Joe Thorn has written a couple posts on discovering and developing elders.

Post 1: Leadership Development

Our man in Philly strikes back. Lance has given us another reason for Reformed African Americans to grow in media savvy and to write--The Baal Network. I'm loving that new name! (HT: Carter).

Colin calls on Spurgeon who reminds us to preach the gospel more than ever! After hearing of the atrocities at The Baal Network, this quote from Spurgeon is encouragement indeed.


My brother, Juan Sanchez, Teaching Pastor at High Pointe Baptist Church in Austin, TX, forwarded links to a collection of talks from the Sovereign Grace leadership conference. Excellent stuff for pastors and their wives.

General-session titles and speakers
The Holiness of God (R.C. Sproul)
The Holiness of Christ (R.C. Sproul)
In the Last Analysis: Look Out for Introspection (David Powlison)
Trinitarian Pastoral Ministry (C.J. Mahaney)


Men’s seminar titles and speakers
Watch Your Planning: The Strategic Role of Personal Retreats (Mike Bullmore)
Watch Your Preaching: Effective Sermon Preparation (Mike Bullmore)
Watch the Spirit Work: Serving Cessationists in Their Pursuit of the Spirit (Craig Cabaniss)
Watch Your Church Calendar: The Importance of Administration in the Local Church (Brent Detwiler)
Watch the Past: Living Lessons from Dead Theologians (Mark Dever)
Watch Your Preaching: The Priority of Proclamation in the Local Church (Mark Dever)
Watch Your Devotional Life: The Pastor’s Communion with God (Rick Gamache)
Watch Your Mission: To Be, or Not to Be, ‘Missional’ (Dave Harvey)
Watch Your Sunday Meeting: Planning the Most Important Moment of the Week (Joshua Harris and Bob Kauflin)
Watch Your Leisure: Learning to Rest with a Full Inbox (John Loftness)
Watch Your Bible Reading: Making Personal Application (David Powlison)
Watch the Sacraments: Recapturing Vital Elements in the Life of the Church (Jeff Purswell)
Watch Your Reading: Developing Breadth and Depth in the Pastor’s Life and Ministry (Phil Sasser)
Watch Your Marriage: Loving and Leading Our Wives (Steve Shank)


Ladies’ seminar titles and speakers
Watch Your Man (Carolyn Mahaney)
Watch Your Priorities (Panel)

"How do you find our hospitality?"

1. Hospitality is a tangible expression of love. Christians are called to love one another and their enemies and hospitality gives practical form to that love. Elders should model this.


2. Hospitality is a tangible way to care for strangers. How do we know that we're caring for the strangers in our gate? Well, one measure is how close we get to them. Hospitality brings us close in a meaningful way. It establishes intimacy and relationship that reflects the love of Christ in an identifiable way.


3. Hospitality enables evangelism. Perhaps the reason so many Christians have no non-Christian friends and find themselves "far removed" from evangelistic opportunities is they are not hospitable. You can't share the gospel with a person you don't greet or with a person you will not spend time with in some way. Apart from being hospitable on some level, sharing the good news become close to impossible.


4. Hospitality enables discipleship and fellowship. The early church devoted themselves to, among other things, breaking bread and fellowship (Acts 2). Among the fundamental activities of the early Christian church, hospitality ranks up them with devotion to the apostles' doctrine.
   

I don't much like walking through malls. I guess I'm the stereotypical male. I storm through to the one (at the most three) stores that potentially have what I'm searching for, select the item, and then escape the whole harrowing experience through the closest exit.

"If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach..." (1 Tim. 3:1-2a).

The nobility of the pastoral office requires a certain character. The reliable men churches are to seek for the office must be men whose inner and outer lives are sewn together with integrity and Christ-like character.

The second characteristic that Paul lists after desire is "above reproach." This first characteristic is really an umbrella for all those that follow. A man is to be blameless in his outward conduct. He is to be upright and just in his dealings with others.

Paul says that the elder is to be beyond question in this regard. It's a reputation that is deserved. An elder is to be the kind of man that no one suspects of wrongdoing and immorality, the kind of man that people would be surprised or shocked to hear charged with such acts. It's certainly not that he is sinless or perfect, but that his demeanor and behavior over time has garnered well-deserved respect and admiration from others. This is critically important because once an elder at least two things are assumed: that man is then held out as an example for all areas of life to all the sheep (1 Tim. 4:12; 1 Pet. 5:1-3) and elders are to be granted the benefit of the doubt in the protection from charges they receive in the congregation (1 Tim. 5:19). One of the worst thing you can have is a man lacking in character setting a bad example while being shielded by the generosity of judgment the office warrants.

Another critically important thing is that an elder be held in high esteem for his character, not for his wealth, popularity at parties, or any such worldly thing. There is a real temptation and pitfall when it comes to discerning whether men meet this requirement of being beyond reproach. We may be tempted to grant this status to men on the grounds that they have "made it in the business world," "have a long family history with the church," or "everyone really likes Joe, he's a great guy." The apostle isn't commending notariety in those terms, but a dignity of character commensurate with the office. If a man is popular in the worldly sense but lacks the "beyond reproach" character Paul identifies, he will likely lead out of his popularity instead of character. He may fear man more than God (a temptation at times acutely felt in the office), or attempt to run the church like his business, or assume certain "rights" because of his standing in the community or his family name. That man may cripple an eldership for a time.

All Christians must be above reproach, but Christian elders must be so. How do we find such men? How do we train men in this attribute?

On the Lookout for Those "Beyong Reproach": Some Observations to Make (Please add others)

1. Take note of those men who are faithful in their dealings inside the church. For example, do they keep their commitment to give regularly and sacrificially to the church? Do they swear to their own hurt, keeping their word when others might not blame them for backing out of a commitment?

2. Take note of men who "command respect" (in the best sense of the phrase) from others. Are there men who inspire uprightness in others? Perhaps by their very presence people out of respect for them seem to "straighten up" or show more zeal. Perhaps he is a man that everyone turns to or nominates for positions requiring ethical integrity because they are confident he will "do the right thing."

3. Take note of those men who carry on their lives outside the church with integrity. Are they men who show up to work on time, or men who can't hold a steady job because of poor work habits? Are they men who manage their financial affairs well, paying debts and living within their means, or are they men living beyond their means financially and failing to meet obligations?

Some Questions to Ask (Please Add Others)
Assuming church leaders have such a man in view, a few questions might be asked during the "courting" of that man for eldership.

1. Is there anything in your life you feel disqualifies you for serving as an elder? It's a wide open question but a good basic way of beginning to hear the man's self-assessment and possibly find out more about his integrity.

2. Would any of your coworkers or family be surpised to hear that you were a leader in your church? Here, you're sorta probing for whether the man's reputation is good among others outside the church. The question relies on the man's knowledge (imperfect) of his reputation among others, but it's a start. Church leaders may decide to ask this question of some of the man's business associates or coworkers to get a response from them as well.

3. Are there persons who would say you should not serve in any church's leadership? And why would they say this? Elders are to enjoy good reputations inside and outside the church. If there is some outstanding "beef" from others, it would be good to explore (a) the nature of that dispute, (b) how the potential elder has handled that issue--whether godly or not, and (c) whether the opinion of others disqualify the man.

CONCLUSION
The character of the elder is paramount in importance. The nobility of the office requires that only men with befitting integrity hold it. In a day where most people, Christians included, are repulsed by the idea of "judging others," being patient to discern mature and "beyond reproach" character for potential elders may be one of the most difficult things churches do in finding reliable men. But it's necessary for the health and purity of the Lord's Bride.

And because it's necessary, cultivating this kind of integrity--both in the current elders of a church and prospective elders--is critical. Questions, encouragement, and accountability regarding our conduct in various settings should constantly be on the agenda in our discipling and teaching efforts.

"And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others" (2 Tim. 2:2).

Beliefnet recently published their list of "who's who" in African-American spiritual circles (HT: Tim Challies). It's an interesting smorgasborg of spiritual ideas, and exhibit A in why the African-American church needs to be reformed! And what a most tragic report to release in African-American history month....

My good and faithful brother Eric asked me to put forward a bare-bones Christ-centered solution for disentangling "blackness" and "whiteness" from "church." If I understood his comments correctly, there is a good and natural question about how to jettison idolatrous notions of blackness and preserve a recognition of the imago dei in black folks. He asks: "what aspects of the image of God in browner skin tones will/should remain when "'black'ness" is Reformed?" A great question.

Trusting Eric's discernment, I've probably reached the point where I need to get past lament and offer some thoughts aimed more clearly at solution. And to do that, I want to be as "bare-bones" about it as I can. And to do that... let me simply ask and answer the question, "Ideally, what kind of church would I really, really like to belong to or pastor?"

Here are my answers in descending importance. "I would really, really like to belong to or pastor a church where":

1. The gospel of Jesus Christ is faithfully preached each Lord's Day and consistently applied to the Christian and non-Christian. I would love to belong to a church or pastor a church where the teachers "bring da Word," rightly divided, in season and out of season, where the Gospel is proclaimed and protected by leaders and members who search the Scripture.

2. People love radically. Across class, ethnic, language, political, citizenship status, gender, generational and every other natural division. A church of deep and wide fellowship between members, not just on Sundays but daily from house to house and in the workplace. Rejoicing together, mourning together, bearing with one another, receiving the weaker brothers, laying down liberties. A church where the watching world says, "Yep... those folks must be Jesus followers. Surely God sent Jesus to save the world. Look at how they love!"

3. The saints are called up into heaven or call heaven down in prayer. Put me in a church where the people of God call on the God of the people day and night with fervency, expectation, and joy.

4. People are growing and are concerned to help others grow. The fruit of the Spirit are evident and lasting. The brances are abiding in the True Vine. Bible knowledge increases, but so too does obedience to what the Bible teaches, and all without arrogance or being puffed up.

5. Clear, healthy, loving distinctions are kept between those professing faith in Christ and those not professing faith. I'd love to belong to a church that owns its responsibility for knowing the spiritual state of its members and for calling its members to live holy lives depending upon God's gracious aid.

6. Members are zealous in doing good. A church where members are first focused on the needs of the body and secondly the community. Where there are no limits to their generosity, compassion, and commitment to serving others. And the one good they do at all times is spread the Good News to every creature.

7. Family worship is modeled and practiced by all with families. Where Christianity is not a solo sport and nor is it a public, pay-per-view event but is practiced in homes when no one is watching but the children and the Lord. Where seeds are planted and watered by fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, and God gives abundant increase in the conversion and discipleship of young people.

8. Missions is a high priority budgetarily and in individual personal decisions.

Okay... this is the church I'd love to join or pastor. Right about now, the old joke is ringing in my head. "If you find a perfect church, don't join it. Because if you do, it won't be perfect anymore." There are probably other things I'd consider in some measure, but I think this is the meat. And I think this would be a bare-bones, Christ-centered corporate body. Now, to return to Eric's question....

Nothing is said in this list about culture or ethnicity. How much of our cultural identity (black, white, Asian, etc.) needs to be put aside and how much retained? We need put aside everything that hinders the 8 items above, in my opinion. If these 8 things are more or less indicative of the agenda of Jesus in the Church, His body, and if anything associated with our identity hinders any of these eight things, then our "identity" has crossed a very wide and important line.

I receive a fair amount of email from good white brothers in the Lord asking, "How much should I be willing to do to accomodate non-white attenders and members in the church?" And I get an equal amount of mail from good black brothers in the Lord asking, "How much of my culture should I give up in order to join predominantly white churches?" (Notice how both questions arc in the same direction... blacks joining white churches. I almost never get these same questions from the vantage point of whites joining black churches).

The answer in both cases is the same, I think. Accomodate or give up as much as is necessary to live like Jesus in the church, as much as is necessary to live out these eight things (or some similar but better defined list).

Make no mistake. The cost of doing this is quite high--especially for ethnic minorities joining predominantly white churches (again, that's the direction most of this conversation takes. I assume there may be similar costs for white brethren joining predominantly black churches; I just don't have any real data). We might measure the costs on an increasing scale that looks something like this:

• Mild discomfort at being "the only one."
• A sense of alienation triggered by "foreign" or "white" music styles, sermon illustrations, or jokes
• Loss of genuine fellowship and friendship with other Christians at the "white church"
• Family mildly, half-jokingly questions your racial identity or loyalty to the community
• Family and "friends" reject you as "too white"; loss of significant friendships and relationships in your native community and your "white church"
• Troubled self-perception; internalized self-hatred as an ethnic minority
• Isolation, misunderstanding, fear and in some cases depression
• Parents watch their children experience pains of confused ethnic identity

These aren't strictly linear or stagewise. Not everyone experiences the same thing or the same degree of intensity. But these are some of the real costs.

My white brethren need to understand that these are real costs experienced by the brave who would live, love and labor together across ethnic lines, and that a staunch, uncritical adherence to "white" (misread, "neutral") cultural styles is inflicting unnecessary harm on their brown brethren. My black brethren need to trust God that the potential costs will be met (if not in this life time, then in glory) with staggering rewards and crowns of rejoicing. More of my white brethren need to experience these costs and take these risks of faith by joining predominantly black churches instead of driving by half a dozen to find the nice suburban white church. More of my black brethren need to actively seek non-blacks to be a part of their spiritual family. All of us need to risk as much as we can for a vision of a reformed church where all nations are welcomed and loved.

The cost is high, but great are the rewards if we by God's grace can live this way.

I've stayed away from discussing corporate worship (music styles and singing) in pretty much all the posts I've written on race and culture and the church. Eric politely called me on it :-) I've stayed away from it because (a) it's emotional and explosive for many, often leading to unproductive conversations, and (b) I don't think it's really the issue that matters most. In other words, if we really wanted to live like Jesus would have us live in the church, we'd figure something out. We wouldn't mind singing something from 16th century Europe or Latin America or a hymn in Swahili from East Africa (groups ranging from Selah to Donnie McClurkin have figured out how to do this) as long as it celebrated and exalted our one Jesus.

I'm musically illiterate, but I sing just about everything except that rock stuff (I don't get it... where's the beauty?). I've learned to enjoy most classical. Hymns of the Reformation are cool. Mahalia Jackson is still the queen. Fairfield Four... Gaithers... Mercy Me... Budy Jewell... Peter Tosh... Dinah Washington... Marian Anderson... Kathy Trocolli... Phillips, Craig and Dean... Albertina Walker... Kurt Carr. This is a partial list of the artists I'm looking at in my bookshelf right now. Half the folks aren't "native" to me, culturally speaking. But there's much I've learned to appreciate. And learning to appreciate is another way of saying learning to love. And perhaps that's what's missing in our churches when it comes to Christ-centered reform and questions of culture... we've not yet learned to love the way Jesus loves.

At the end of the day, my hunch is that our churches are not integrated--not because our cultural heritages are so intractable and music styles so divergent--but because we're not even trying. We have all the omnipotent aid of heaven to sustain us in our efforts and an omniscient wisdom to guide us in our thinking. There's really no excuse; we're complacent in our cultural enclaves. It's to the church's shame that Jackie Robinson integrated baseball before the church has integrated. It's to our shame that Brown v. Board integrated public schools before the churches have integrated. It's to our shame that the military beat us to it by several decades. It's to our shame that unregenerate men have made more progress on at least co-existing in the same space than the blood-bought church of Jesus Christ has made on loving across boundaries.

I want to join a church so deeply marked by those eight things above that cultural reforms in the church, if not easy, are at least considered an essential part of what it means to be the body of Christ. What parts of the imago dei in darker hue will remain? I suspect the parts that have nothing to do with hue... but with love, peace, reconciliation, and union with Jesus. I also suspect that will be costly.

Not without reforming the pastor.

It seems that so much of the church's health rides on the health of the pastors/elders and the men of the church. And that's by God's design.

Pastors and elders are to be examples to the flock in everything (1 Tim. 4:12b). They are rightly looked to as a model of Christian faith, conduct and virtue. And their prominence and teaching role in the congregation more or less guarantees that they will impress their character upon that of the congregation. The congregation, over time, will think and act much like the elders/pastors think and act. Which is to say, over time they will think and act more like Jesus if that's the pastors' manner, or they will think and act in ways well beneath the calling of Christ if that be the pastors' way of life.

This makes reforming the man in the ministry of paramount importance. Will he leave the imprimatur of Christ on the people of God, or will he leave them stamped with the stains of his deficiency and unprepared to meet Christ on the Day of Judgment? Each time we enter the pulpit, each time we gather as the church, we confess our belief in the coming Day of the Lord. We need the kind of reformation of pastors that makes such faith in the coming Day clear in our lives, our pursuits, our preaching, etc. Here's how Lemuel Haynes expressed it in one ordination sermon:

[His preaching] is not to display his talents; but like one who feels the weight of eternal things, he will not address his hearers as though judgment was a mere empty sound; but viewing eternity just before him, and a congregation on the frontiers of it, whose eternal state depends upon a few uncertain moments; Oh! with what zeal and fervor will he speak! How will death, judgment, and eternity appear as it were in every feature, and every word! Out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will speak. His hearers will easily perceive, that the preacher is one who expects to give account. He will study and preach with reference to a judgment to come, and deliver every sermon in some respects, as if it were his last, not knowing when his Lord will call him, or his hearers to account. —We are not to suppose that his zeal will vent itself in the frightful bellowings of enthusiasm; but he will speak forth the words of truth in soberness, with modesty, and Christian decency.

The reformation of the African-American church--again, the entire church--will come when the men who shepherd her "feel the weight of eternal things" and leave off vain and trivial trifles. Eternity will press itself into their personal lives and will overflow in their public ministry. Fitness for heaven will be their grand theme. He will disdain the praise and applause of men, the diversions of the world, and the trappings of a perishing society, and choose instead the ineffable joys of glory in the presence of the Father and the Risen Lamb!

You don't get this at convention meetings, or seminaries for that matter. You get this primarily by sitting at the Master's feet, seeing the world the way He does, and usually through the careful discipleship and training offered by a godly, seasoned, serious pastor. The Lord and the church train men for this kind of ministry.

A couple weeks ago, a small swirl was created when Bro. Piper issued a call for ethnic minorities to join his staff. Now I, for one, would send every prospective African-American pastor I know to Bethlehem to learn from John. I would send every prospective African-American pastor I know to the internship program at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Both of these congregations and pastors give themselves to training future pastors, and I'd have no problem flooding their efforts with young ethnic brothers. Never mind the politics of race or the angst of affirmative action. We want the church reformed according to the Word of God and that will require reforming the men who lead her--"by any godly means necessary!"

I wish every solid African-American church had a similar training effort. But even lacking that, I would send every prospective African-American pastor I know to learn from Ken Jones, Tony Carter, Michael Leach and a thousand other faithful shepherds laboring in anonymity with the weight of eternity resting on their hearts and minds.

Can the predominantly African-American church be reformed? If so, almost certainly it will require a revival of sound, biblical preaching.

The last post explored the assertion that by any historical definition of "true church" the African American church (writ large) is not one. At the top of the list of woes contributing to this situation was this critique:

The Word is not rightly preached in most African American churches. That is, the biblical Gospel is wholly absent in far too many churches. Forget about a commitment to exposition... topical rules the day and ironically, many African-American preachers sound like white plantation preachers (only it's not "slave don't steal massa's chicken," it's "black folks, you gotta vote democratic down the line or God wants you rich"). Different lyrics, same tired tune.

This is by no means an original observation. There is a trail of African Americans lamenting the woeful state of black preaching, including some of African America's greatest church statesmen.

For example, Bishop Daniel A. Payne, one of the most influential and tireless bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church described the preaching in his day this way:

First, then, the preaching of the Gospel. What do we understand by this? Various are the answers given. Some there are who believe it to consist in loud declamation and vociferous talking; some in whooping, stamping and beating the Bible or desk with their fists, and in cutting as many odd capers as a wild imagination can suggest; and some err so grievously on this subject as to think that he who hallooes the loudest and speaks the longest is the best preacher. Now all these crude ideas have their origin in our education, for we believe just what we have been taught. But if any man wishes to know what is preaching the Gospel, let him not ask of mere mortal man, but let him find his answer in the teachings of Him who spake, and whose wisdom is without mixture of error. Hear him in the matchless sermon on the Mount, teaching us to find blessedness in poverty and meekness, in peace and righteousness, in mercy and purity, and to find exceeding great joy in persecution for righteousness sake. See with what divine skill he expounds the moral law, and carries its application beyond the outward and visible conduct into the interior and invisible workings of the human soul. Behold Him either in private houses or on the sea shore, or in the temple, by parables of the most striking beauty and simplicity, unfolding the great principles upon which the moral government of the universe is based, enlightening their understandings and warming their hearts with the sunbeams of eternal truth. This is preaching—preaching of the highest kind. We will do well to imitate it.... ("Who Is Sufficient for These Things?", 1852).

Payne's assessment of African-American preaching prior to Emancipation was that it was largely a product of education (read, miseducation) and full of "loud declamation and vociferous talking." He is, in effect, calling for preaching that takes Jesus as the model, that is preaching that is expositional, doctrinal and application oriented.

Dr. Frances J. Grimke, for 55 years the pastor of the prominent 15th Street Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C. and long-time activist in the cause of racial equality, assessed the African-American pulpit of his day in these words: "If we turn now and examine carefully the character of the pulpit ministrations of the Afro-American pulpit, its three leading characteristics will be found to be emotionalism, levity or frivolity, and a greed for money." Does that ring a bell for us?

Grimke went on at length to describe the emotionalism, frivolity and greed he saw. Consider this long description of emotionalism and its effects (I'd highly commend the entire sermon, "The Afro-American Pulpit in Relation to Race Elevation," 1892):

First, it is emotion. The aim seems to be to get up an excitement, to arouse the feelings, to create an audible outburst or emotion, or, in the popular phraseology, to get up a shout to make people “happy.” In many churches where this result is not realized, where the minister is unable by sheer force of lung power, and strength of imagination, to produce this state of commotion, he is looked upon as a failure. Even where there is an attempt to instruct, in the great majority of cases this idea is almost sure to assert itself, and become the dominant one.Now, where emotionalism prevails, three things will be found to be true: First, there will be little of no instruction from the pulpit. The minister whose sole or chief aim is to get up a shout, to excite animal spirits, will not give much time to the study of God’s word, or to the instruction of the people in the practical duties of
religion....

Second: Where emotionalism prevails there will be a low state of spirituality among the people, and necessarily so. Christian character is not built up in that way. It is a growth, and comes from the knowledge and practice of Christian principles. If the body is to grow, it must be fed, and fed on wholesome and nutritious food. And the same is true of the soul; and that food is God’s Word, line upon line, and precept upon precept. There is no other way of getting up out of the bogs and malarious atmosphere of selfishness and pride, and ill-will and hatred, and the many things which degrade and brutalize into the higher regions of love and purity and obedience and felicity, except by the assimilation of Christian principles, except by holy and loving obedience to the will of God. We cannot get up there on the wings of emotion; we cannot shout ourselves up to a high Christian manhood and womanhood any more than we can shout ourselves into Heaven. We must grow up to it. And until this fact is distinctly understood, and fully appreciated, and allowed to have its weight in out pulpit ministrations, the plane of spirituality upon which the masses of our people move will continue low. Shouting is not religion. The ability to make a noise is no test of Christian character. The noisiest Christians are not the most saintly; those who shout the most vigorously are not always the most exemplary in character and conduct.

Third: Where emotionalism prevails the underlying conception of religion will be found to be false, pernicious, and degrading. The conception which James gives us of religion is this: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this—To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” The conception which Paul gives is,—“Covet earnestly the best gifts, and yet show I you a more excellent way.” “Charity suffereth long and is kind,” etc. The conception which Micah gives is: “What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8). The conception which the blessed Lord himself gives is: “When I was an hungered, ye gave me meat; thirsty, ye gave me drink; sick and in prison, and ye visited me” (Matt. 25:35), etc. Running through all these statements of principles, the dominant, controlling idea is character. In emotionalism, however, this element is entirely overlooked, or sinks almost entirely out of sight. The measure of one’s piety is made to depend upon the strength and the amount of his emotions. Thus the true ideal is shut out from view, the standard set up is a false one, and the result is not only stagnation but degradation. The ideal of religion which is held up in our pulpits, and which is cherished by the people, must be in harmony with the facts as revealed in the Word of God, if it is to have an elevating and ennobling effect upon their everyday life.

Ouch. Just scanning the popular preaching of our day, the preaching that most regard as "good Black preaching," I'd have to say we've not made much progress since Payne or Grimke. I'd have to conclude that emotionalism, frivolity, and greed are still ravaging too many pulpits.

If reform is to happen, we need men in the pulpits of our churches who are:

• Committed to bring the Word of God to the people of God as the only manna by which they must be nourished. Teaching is needed, not entertainment. God's Word is needed, not pop psychology and the latest business fads. Now this will mean distinguishing between style and substance (and casting off "style"); faith that God works in the world by His Word; a life of serious study; reverence before God knowing that those who teach receive a stricter judgment; and great love for the people of God such that we want to see them grow up into Christ in all things. What an abuse it is to take the Word of God out of the mouths of God's people. What an unloving and hateful practice.
• Committed to exposition. Exposition of the Scriptures should be the primary form of that teaching. Personally, I tend to think we need men to teach through entire books of the Bible. Having said that, though, even topical series should be comprised of solid expositions. We need men to open the meaning of God's Word and convey that meaning as the main point of their sermons week after week.
• Doctrinally sound. Most revivals in church history have accompanied doctrinally rich preaching. Moreover, emotions rise and fall, so preaching to emotions or felt needs inevitably leave people "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine." We need preachers rooted in solid systematic and biblical theologies, and who bring those categories to their preaching and to their people.
• Evangelistic preaching. In every sermon, we need men to preach the gospel. We may preach more than the gospel, but we should never preach less than the gospel. The Good News of Jesus Christ must be prominent, clear, penetratingly applied, and driven from the text. If, as Jesus taught, all of Scripture points to Him, then all of our preaching should point to Him whether in the OT or the NT, and specifically point to Him as the only fulfillment of God's promises and man's need for a Savior.

Apart from the recovery of expositional, doctrinally-rich and sound, evangelistic preaching, reform and revival are impossible in the predominantly African-American church--in any church.

The problem with "the African American church" (writ large) today is that by almost any historical definition she is not a true church.

That statement clearly needs to be unpacked. They key phrase would be "historical definition [of] a true church."

Reformation Definition
Following from the Reformation, a true church is defined by three marks: right preaching of the word, right administration of the sacraments, and implied in the first two, church discipline. Another, less often mentioned but probably also implied, would be love as the mark of Christian discipleship (John 13:34).

Towards An African American Definition
Now, some might argue that's a eurocentric definition of "true church." That's what Luther, Calvin and the other boys thought, but what about black folks' own definition of a true church?

Well, it's interesting. I think there's enough evidence from things like slave conversion stories and written sermons to suggest that, early on, African Americans would have held a fairly similar view as that above with one pretty important addition. So, slave testimonies are just littered with slaves' recounting the fact that white plantation preachers never really taught the gospel or the whole counsel of God, only "slaves obey your masters... slaves don't steal master's chickens." The language "right preaching of the word" isn't used, but the idea is clearly there. Greg Wills demonstrates rather conclusively that African American churches once practiced discipline at rates comparable to everyone else (Democratic Religion). And surely, to be Methodist was to be disciplined. The same was true of AME churches early on. The practice of discipline evidenced a strong membership culture... which usually lead to a right administration of the sacraments.

The one thing that the African American church historically adds to the definition of a "true church," is a much stronger sense of the gospel implications for social justice. I hesitate to borrow the term "social justice" because of a lot of what parades under that banner. But it must be said that from the start, given their situation as chattel and subjects of oppression, African Americans have always understood the church to bear significant responsibility for engaging society in the pursuit of just causes. And on this point, I'd have to maintain that such churches, earlier in the history, were in fact stronger, more biblical churches than their white counterparts.

The Problems As I See It
This could take a lot of space. So, let me just bullet point the issues and invite all to add to the list or challenge some of the observations below:

• The Word is not rightly preached in most African American churches. That is, the biblical Gospel is wholly absent in far too many churches. Forget about a commitment to exposition... topical rules the day and ironically, many African-American preachers sound like white plantation preachers (only it's not "slave don't steal massa's chicken," it's "black folks, you gotta vote democratic down the line or God wants you rich"). Different lyrics, same tired tune.
• Related to the above, I think we can find reverence for the Bible but either a poor or absent understanding of its sufficiency and authority in the life of the church. A spiritualizing, liberal hermeneutic is commonplace.
• The tyranny of "culture." Much of what gets justified in African American churches makes an appeal to culture. "You know how we do it." So, for example, black preaching gets traced back to plantation exhorter who couldn't read and did a heroic job in dreadful circumstances... but nobody asks if slave preaching is suitable for a post-slavery, post-civil rights, basically educated and freed people. "Culture" and history make the question irrelevant.
• When's the last time you were in an African American church and saw "the table fenced"? I hope more recently than I. When's the last time you attended an African American church where conversion, baptism, church membership, and the privileges of the Lord's supper were connected and taught?
• With the loss of a clear and distinctive notion of membership has come a view of the church membership that's co-terminous with the African American community at large. In other words, the idea of regenerate church membership is pretty much lost in favor of an over identification with the community. As I read the history, such an identificatio nhas always been there, and has been necessary since the social and political condition of African Americans has historically been predicated upon group membership (race). But there was a time when the church held more firmly a distinction between church and community while also advocating for the just cause of the community.
• Church discipline? What?
• Social justice. Let me just say that the church has been hijacked by political suicide bombers who crash her into every quixotic windmill that makes a claim to "discrimination" or "equal rights." Women preachers. Gay rights in some quarters. Economic empowerment. Voter registration drives. Consequently, there is neither gospel or justice in too many churches.

This is my short list of the problems. Corrections? Other thoughts?

I think the historical assumptions of African American's about what constitutes a true church is really quite powerful--the full counsel of God preached, church membership that distinguishes the Christian from the world, right administration of the ordinances, and love working itself out in church discipline and social action. But I think this definition began to lose ground around 1830 with the radicalization of the abolitionist movement, and certainly became lopsided in its emphasis on social justice post Reconstruction and the Civil Rights era... until it's basically vanished today.

Is this definition of a "true church" a good (sufficient) one? Is this kind of church recoverable among predominantly African-American churches?

That's a question I've been rolling over in my head recently. It's a big question. It's a troubling question for me on many levels, not the least of which is it's confrontation of my own faith or lack thereof. Asking "can" the church be reformed is tantamount in some respects to doubting God. Perhaps "will" is a better verb?

In any event, lots of folks are thinking these days that the church is in need of serious reform and has been for some time. That's a near universal sentiment whether you're on the theological conservative or progressive end of the spectrum. Almost everyone wants more of something to happen in the African-American church... more political involvement, more gospel-centeredness, more focus on health issues like the AIDS crisis, more faithfulness to biblical teaching regarding the church. And typically, if you want more of one thing (gospel-centeredness, for example) you are likely to want less of another (say, political involvement).

All of this really begs the question of what kind of reform one has in mind. And laced together with that question is some notion or assumption about what one should mean by the phrase "African-American church," especially when you attach the definite article "the" before it. At this point... angels are beginning to fear to tread this path!

And along with what kind of reform, I suppose there needs to be some argument for why reform; what's the problem(s) said reform needs to address. After all, how you define the problem will have much to do with what solutions appear feasible.

That there is at present very little consensus on what the problems are, what the African-American church should be, and then what reforms are needed... makes this a thorny issue. Al Sharpton's Black church is very different from Ken Jones' church which is very different from Tony Evans' church. We could go on. And if we did, we'd then be confronted with the question of where is leadership for reform going to come from? The perennial questions: where are we going and whose got the map?

This is the first in a series of reflections. The posts, Lord willing, will consider the question of reforming the African American church in particular. But because I believe that any reform of this nature must learn from other "branches" of the church, I do hope that non-African Americans will join in and contribute.

Let me end this post with a brief problem statement that I'll unpack in a future post(s), Lord willing. Put simply and bluntly, without nuance that will follow later, at the risk of offending many, but with the hope of provoking reflections and energy commensurate with the eternal life and death scale of this question:

The problem with "the African American church" (writ large) today is that by almost any historical definition she is not a true church.

Okay. That's a sweeping statement. It doesn't apply to all African-American churches by a long shot, but I think there's cause to think it may apply to most, otherwise the calls for reform wouldn't be as consistent and near universal as they are.

Let me end with what some might regard as an equally sweeping statement about "the African American church" when she was at her best. Put simply and bluntly, without nuance that will follow later, at the risk of offending many, but with the hope of provoking aspirations commensurate with the eternal life and death scale of this question:

"The African-American church" was once the home of the purest form of Christianity practiced on American soil and she can be the fulcrum of reform in not only the African-American Christian world but the larger Christian world as well.

Welcome to the discussion. Jump in with both feet!

Probably not. I hadn't either until I read a three-part interview (one, two, three) with her over at Adrian Warnock's blog. Wendy serves as Deacon in Charge of Women's Theology and Training at Mars Hill in Seattle. Now every church ought to have one or two of those!!

The interview is a pretty friendly exploration of Mars Hill and Wendy's role as Deacon. A clip:

Adrian: Going back to your own role in the church, tell me what exactly does a "Deacon in Charge of Women's Theology and Training" do?

Wendy: Originally, I was asked to take over our Practical Theology for Women course. It started more as a women's forum, but has evolved to an eight-week study of the character and attributes of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and how knowing Him equips us for the practical issues of life. The first lesson is "What is Theology and Why Should I Care?" which is an important question for women to ask themselves. I have been stunned over the years by the number of Christian (or at least churched) women who think theology is irrelevant to them. Many think theology is just a bunch of dead men debating Latin phrases. My goal in the Practical Theology for Women class was not to dumb down the deep things of the Word, but to present them in a way that they are accessible to someone who is not schooled in theological phraseology. We've podcast a condensed version of the class, and it's available on our main church website (pardon the shameless plug).

My responsibilities at church have grown, and now I help organize most of the teaching events for women. I try to keep my ear to the ground to understand the "felt needs" of women at church. But then I try (with other godly women in the church) to figure out what the needs reflect about our view of the Gospel and the character of God. We then organize each teaching event with the foundation of knowing the God of the Bible and stripping away the God of our imagination, showing how knowing the truth of God's character rightly addresses the felt problem.

Adrian: How did you come to join the Mars Hill staff? Were you appointed straight from a theological seminary, or did you have other experience before you got this role?

Wendy: I have a minor in Bible from a Christian college. But, honestly, the vast majority of my theological knowledge has been taught me through the church—not necessarily just Sunday sermons, but through contact with the Body, sitting over coffee debating limited atone-ment, dispensationalism, or what have you. I've learned so much just by talking to the right people who direct me to read the right people. It's not that I don't value seminary training. But it's not accessible to the average church member, so surely that's not the most effective way to raise up leaders in the church. My husband has no seminary training whatsoever, but he is a constant source of wisdom to me as I prepare each lesson I teach.

There is a difference in studying theology and getting theological degrees. The first is absolutely necessary and the second is sometimes helpful. There are a number of staff and members at Mars Hill with degrees and/or pursuing degrees. But there are many, many more intent on learning their theology. In fact, I consider that the norm at Mars Hill.

Mars Hill takes seriously their responsibility to train up leaders from within the church. When I first got to Mars Hill, I was really rebuked by the number of relatively new Christians (maybe two to three years in the faith) who could run circles around me in their knowledge of the Word. I recently had dinner with a lady who was saved as a corporate career woman living with an abusive boyfriend. She had been saved maybe two years at the time, her life beautifully transformed, and in the middle of dinner she asked me my views on covenant versus dispensational theology. I thought, "What in the world?!" I had probably been saved twenty years before I ever cracked a book on that one.

Check out the three-parter and counting.