The Body With One Part?

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Jon Zens

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In answer to the question, “Why don’t women ever read or pray in Bethlehem’s church services?” John Piper answered in part:

But the real question, I think, they’re asking is about the prayers of praise, the reading of the text, and the preaching, and none of those the women do at Bethlehem. And that is intentional.

My reason is because—not that others have to see it this way—I view  that moment and that place in the worship service as one of pastoral authority. The pulpit stands there symbolizing the word of God preached, and that’s what the elders are responsible to do. The reading of the text is part of that. And the offering up of the prayers of the congregation in an official, formal, representative capacity at the front is pastoral.

If you switched it all around and you said, “I don’t want to view any of it that way,” then the principles wouldn’t apply in the way that we’re applying them. But in my sense, a woman is that moment acting like a pastor or elder, and that’s what we don’t think is appropriate.

It’s a pretty small, little place at Bethlehem. The pulpit is there, and those three things—the prayer of praise, the reading of the Scripture, and the preaching of the sermon—is a very, very small part of the life of this church. It’s big and important. But time-wise and ministry-wise it is a small thing. (Why don’t women ever read or pray in Bethlehem’s church services? by John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org)

My heart is saddened by the ways we miss the free-flowing presence of Christ by the intrusion of religious ways of doing things that, as Paul warned, “are according to the tradition of men . . . and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).

“Preaching” is mentioned in the comments above. The act of the sermon is the high point of the Protestant service. Yet in the New Testament – the collection of books that is said to be the rule of faith and practice by church leaders – there is no evidence concerning one person giving a weekly sermon. Most of the time in the NT “preaching” is an outreach activity among those who are outside of Christ. There is one time when “proclamation” in the setting of saints meeting together is mentioned, but this is a declaration by the whole church, not by the speech of one person (1 Cor. 11:26).

What we do see in the NT is a gathering of believers who are actively expressing Christ in various ways (1 Cor. 14). As William Barclay noted in 1956, “The really notable thing about an early Church service must have been that almost everyone came with a sense that he had both the privilege and the obligation of contributing something to it.”

It is stated above that what happens behind the pulpit is a matter of “pastoral authority.” Where is there anything about “the pastor” in the NT, and where is his “authority” unfolded? Here’s an example of how a bogus tradition becomes the foundation for restricting others in the church. Because of this alleged “pastoral authority” women cannot do anything from behind the pulpit.

But that raises another question. Where is there anything in the NT about the centrality of the pulpit? “The pulpit stands there symbolizing the word of God preached.” And how has it come to be that such a concept has been elevated and inflated without any revelation of Christ about it?

The center point for Catholics was the sacramental table where the Mass was performed. During the Reformation, in places where Protestantism gained power, the sacramental table was pushed aside and the pulpit took its place. Now the preacher, the sermon and the pulpit are center stage.

The depth of fixation on the pulpit is illustrated by the six-picture analysis of Westminster Theological Seminary’s seal, (Winter, 2011, pp. 8-9). Each picture highlights one of the elements of the Seal. Number four depicts the “sacred desk,” and says – “Pulpit: The Word of God Incarnate” (see above). Jesus Christ for sure is the Word of God incarnate. One of his names is “the Word of God.” But to suggest that the pulpit in every church building is where the Word of God is incarnated shows how much heavy infrastructure can be built upon the foundation of religiously-misinformed human thinking.

Again, when that for which there is no evidence is magnified and unduly exalted, the blessings attached to pursuing what Christ has revealed are pushed aside. When the Pharisees multiplied their traditions, and ended up in a labyrinth of complicated rules, the Word of God was nullified.

The answer to the opening question ended by trying to play down the significance of the pulpit. It is suggested that even though women cannot break the aura surrounding the pulpit with their presence, they can participate in many other important aspects of church life. The pulpit is “big and important,” but it “is a very, very small part of the life of this church.” To me, this just points out how a small thing time-wise can become the tail that wags the dog. Statistics show that 90% of people choose what church they go to by who is behind the pulpit and what comes from the voice behind the pulpit. Untold thousands of people drive unbelievably long distances to hear their favorite preacher.

Isn’t reality more along the lines that if you removed the pulpit from most churches, it would be their death-knell and they would go out of business?

We have so elevated the pulpit, the sermon and the pastor that we have no memory of the ethos of what went on in the early church when Christ was expressed by all in a gathering with no one leading from up front. Here’s a good summary by Ernest F. Scott of what we’ve lost through human traditions.

Prayer was offered, as in the Synagogue, but not in stated liturgical form. It was uttered freely, on the impulse of the Spirit, and was presented in the name of Christ, the Intercessor . . . . The Christian faith gave rise to hymns of a new character, often produced in the heat of the moment and almost as soon forgotten; but sometimes short lyrics of real beauty were treasured and repeated . . . . Chief of all these [elements] was the observance of the Supper . . . . This, indeed, was not so much a part of the worship as the vessel which contained all the parts. The purpose of the Christian meeting was to hold the common meal, and to make it a memorial of Jesus’ Last Supper with the disciples . . . . The exercise of the spiritual gifts was thus the characteristic element in primitive worship. Those gifts might vary in their nature and degree according to the capacity of each individual, but they were bestowed on all and room was allowed in the service for the participation of all who were present. “When you meet together,” says Paul, “each of you hath a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, an interpretation.” Every member was expected to contribute something of his own to the common worship . . . . Worship in those first days was independent of all forms (The Nature of the Early Church, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1941, pp.75,77,79,87).

If we gathered together to express Christ in participative meetings like this, we would not have concerns about women intruding into the “holy space” behind the pulpit. We could instead then focus on lifting up Christ through the various parts of the body. It is a tragedy that we have sacrificed Christ-centered flood-gates of blessing for letting one person up front be the one mouth that speaks – and no questions are to be asked.

Jon Zens

“Why Don’t Women Read & Pray in Bethlehem’s Church Services?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij9i5pO9zew

Posted in Jesus & the Bride, Uncategorized, Women in the Ekklesia | 4 Comments

CRUCIFIXION — Nail In Ankle Bone

Posted on December 14, 2011 by Jon Zens

“But there are no explicit descriptions of how crucifixion was done. Until fairly recently there was not a single piece of archaeological evidence to explain the practice. In 1968, however, a significant archaeological discovery was made in a suburb of Jerusalem: an ossuary with the skeletal remains of a man named Yehochanan who had been crucified. Yehochanan had been nailed to an upright beam of wood through the ankle, but the nail hit a knot in the wood and bent, making it difficult to be removed after his death. And so a chunk of the wood was broken off, and Yehochanan was buried with wood and nail still attached to the ankle bone.” – Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd Edition, Oxford, 2004, p. 156.

Crucifixion -- Nail in Ankle Bone

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments

SHOULD THE TAIL WAG THE DOG?

Posted on December 12, 2011 by Jon Zens

“If you indeed continue in the faith having been founded and steadfast and not being moved away from the hope of the Gospel which you heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, of which I Paul became a servant” (Colossians 1:23).

“In fact, Christ, Himself, spelled out the mission of the church in what we refer to as The Great Commission . . . . That commission from Christ is the sole reason why the church exists today.” – James Longstreet, http://www.christianpost.com

Is fulfilling the “Great Commission” the primary reason why the church is left on earth? You would think so from listening to many voices and reading a lot of articles in our day. It appears to me that this assumption needs to be closely scrutinized. For something that is said to be so central and vital, why is teaching and exhortation about it absent from the New Testament epistles and the letters to the seven churches in Revelation?

If one surveys the history of what called itself church, it would be discovered that there was virtually no thought or emphasis on “evangelism” or “missions” because church and state were joined together like Siamese twins from roughly AD 300 to AD 1700. When the age of exploration blossomed in the 1400’s, the religion of the nation was taken to the lands where her ships landed. For example, Christopher Columbus was sent forth by Spain as a representative of the state and church of that country. This was not evangelism, but rather empire-building.

What we call “missions” did not develop until 1792 when William Carey published his controversial book, An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, and then in 1793 he left with family members for India.

In America in the 19th Century, fueled by the likes of Charles Finney and D.L. Moody, the necessity of “fulfilling the Great Commission” began to emerge. Mission Societies multiplied in the States and England.

After WWII American evangelicalism was bombarded with exhortations to “fulfill the Great Commission” because, it was taught, Jesus could not return until the Gospel had been preached to every people group on earth.

So, it would appear that in the 2000’s evangelicalism is now consumed with a wide range of “discipleship” programs based on the assumption that we are responsible to “make disciples of all nations” in order to pave the way for Jesus’ return.

What I sense is that we have allowed evangelism-discipleship to become our obsession, and in the process Jesus Christ is pushed to the periphery. Jesus becomes a means for us to fulfill a pressing duty. Everything is about “making disciples,” “multiplication,” and programs designed to accomplish these ends.

Would we do well to perhaps re-focus on Christ? As we are consumed with following Jesus, how can we not share him with others and reach out to the needy? If you are pursuing Christ, getting to know Him in the depths, then He will ooze from your being. You won’t be able to help but talk about Him to the lost and broken people around you! If He is truly your sole passion, your life will change and your character will be sharpened naturally. People will see Him in you and begin asking questions like, “What makes you tick?” Paul said, “Do good to everyone, especially those in the Lord’s household.” But it is a grave error to run after “causes” and “movements” and “fulfilling the Great Commission” in a way that functionally makes Christ just a means to such ends – instead of exalting Christ as the center, the Alpha and Omega of everything.

Bob Emery drives home a point I think we all need to ponder. “In our pursuit of Christ, assaults on that pursuit can come from many quarters. They may come from a friend, a relative, a parent. They may come in the form of seemingly innocent comments like . . . ‘You should be doing this or that.’ ‘Why aren’t you doing more?’ ‘You have a lot to give. Why don’t you start something?’ ‘Why aren’t you more involved in your church, in giving, in Bible studies, in missions?’ . . . . You should, you should, you should . . . . The question is, do we heed these voices or do we focus on ‘the one thing’ our Lord says is important? . . . What is that one thing? . . . . The one thing that is necessary is to sit at the feet of Jesus and take your place as a receiver. It is to behold his beauty. It is to spend time in his presence, admiring him, adoring him, and loving him, taking in all that he is and all that he has to give. It is to allow him the place he has always wanted to have in your life – to allow him to be the source and giver of all things” (His Desire Is For Me: The Story of Solomon and the Shulammite, Deep River Books, 2011, pp. 183, 185).

In Colossians 1:23 Paul affirmed that even in the First Century the Gospel had been proclaimed in all creation under heaven. Is the “Great Commission” something that is left for us to “complete,” or is the “knowledge of the Lord” coming to expression in people all over the world because Christ promised, “I will build my ekklesia”?

Does Father want us to constantly feel guilty about not “fulfilling” something, or does he desire for the life of his Son to come to expression through us – the Son he has put his seal upon – the Son he has told us to hear in all of life. Father delights in his Son. Isn’t that where our delight should be?

If it remains for us to “fulfill the Great Commission,” then truly it will be a mess. But we can put our confidence in the Lord who will bring to pass his eternal purpose in Christ. In my book Christ Minimized? A Response to Rob Bell’s Love Wins, I comment on the concerns expressed about eternal destinies depending on human efforts and resources:

Can Christ the King Overcome A Flat Tire?
Love Wins asks these questions, “If our salvation, our future, our destiny is dependent on others bringing the message to us, teaching us, showing us – what happens if they don’t do their part? What if the missionary gets a flat tire? This raises another, far more disturbing question: Is your future in someone else’s hands?” (p. 9).

Would the eternal purpose of God in Christ to secure and maintain a Bride for the Son – a purpose in which the Lord works everything out according to the counsel of his will – be left in the hands of frail human beings and adverse circumstances (Ephesians 1:11; 3:11)? Absolutely not! If Father intends to reveal Christ to a person, he will oversee all of the circumstances. If someone fails to speak when they should, or if a car breaks down in the middle of the road – the Lord will find other means to accomplish his plans.

Our life is not about “making disciples,” “multiplying churches,” or “completing the Great Commission in our generation.” Our life is Christ. The Lord’s word to us is – as branches are organically joined to the vine, so “abide/remain in me and you will bear fruit.” To lift up any goals, or means to such goals, is a sure snare. Of course, Paul traveled around and endured many hardships for the Gospel’s sake. But his passion in life was not to be a “soul-winner,” to see a church planted in every city, or to envision millions of house churches covering the earth. He summed up his life’s passion with clarity: “for me to live is Christ . . . . the love of Christ compels me . . . . that I might know him and the fellowship of his sufferings.”

If Jesus is the Alpha and Omega – the A to Z – then what else is there to pursue? Can we be satisfied with Jesus Christ, or must we descend to programs and/or strategies to “win the world”? — Jon Zens, December, 2011

Posted in Ekklesia Life, Jesus & the Bride, Uncategorized | 26 Comments

WHAT ARE MY REASONS FOR WANTING TO GO ON LIVING?

Posted on November 23, 2011 by Jon Zens

Recently, Dotty and I attended a Marriage Encounter (www.wwme.org) weekend. Toward the end of the sessions, the husbands and wives were to spend an hour writing a letter to their spouse and then read their letters to each other. The letter would be in response to nine questions that were listed on a sheet of paper. This sheet opened in such a way that only question #1 was visible at first. The other questions were to be looked at only after #1 was answered. Here is my response to #1. After I read it to Dotty, she thought it would be helpful to others.

Question #1 – What are my reasons for wanting to go on living?

Question #1 is in a sense easy to answer, but also is very profound. My only reason for continuing to live is Jesus Christ. He is my Life, He is my Alpha and Omega, He is everything. Without Him I can do nothing; with Him I can face all things. Jesus is my wisdom, my redemption, my sanctification, my glorification – and anything else there is. As Paul said, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” This paragraph could go on without end.

And this Jesus has made us one – so that together we have one reason to continue living – Jesus Christ.

I’m so thankful that you and I are very clear on this point – this point on which everything hangs. Sadly, many people and couples are muddied in this area.

So we get to be two clay jars through whom Jesus is expressing Himself – together. We have the privilege of continuing the ministry Christ began on earth. It is a joy to do the work of the Lord with you as a partner.

The question is, What are my reasons for wanting to go on living? I feel that the truth is, it must be put in the singular, not plural. You and I have one reason to go on living – our Lord Jesus Christ. Out of that one reason everything else flows – including our love for one another in marriage and all of life.

Since we are of one mind concerning why we go on living, then we must prayerfully work out the nuts and bolts of daily life. Thus a huge part of Him being our reason for living is our relationship together as a picture of Christ and His ekklesia.

I’m so thankful that my purpose and your purpose for continuing in life is Jesus Christ. All the promises of God are “Yes” and “Amen” in Him. I’m so thankful that you and I together can pursue life in Jesus on earth. “To go on living” is Christ. There is just nothing else to say! – Jon Zens, November 20, 2011

Jon & Dotty at NC Beach 2010

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 6 Comments

CONFINED TO THE KITCHEN? The Lord Doesn’t Put Women in This Box

Posted on October 19, 2011 by Jon Zens

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It breaks my heart to see the same worn-out ideas about the “woman’s role” parroted over and over again in source after source. During our recent travels a brother gave me an article, “The Godly Woman’s Role & Influence” by Marlin Kreider (Reaching Out, #69, 2011, Living Waters Mennonite Church, pp.5-6). I would like to deal with several aspects of this article in hopes of helping us discern Christ’s will concerning the full-functioning of the brothers and sisters in his body on earth.

The author expresses a desire to find “God’s way of doing things,” but important information is omitted from the Biblical story that does not fit the box that women are put in.

For example, the first point regarding the “role for women” is “submission.” The article gives the impression that submission is specifically a female issue. This distorts Paul’s thought. Paul mentions the submission of wives only after setting forth the beauty of mutual submission of all believers one to another. Submission is first of all a manifestation of the Spirit among those in the ekklesia. In other words, it is just as important for males to be submissive as it is for females. To lift submission out of its body context and primarily connect it to females is to open the door for dangerous distortion and abuse.

Further, the article states that “suitable helper” translates into meaning that a woman “fill a subordinate role under the direction and protection of a godly father or husband.” This position creates some serious problems, for the Hebrew word “ezer” is most often used of the Lord, who is said to be “the helper of Israel.” Doesn’t this show once and for all that “suitable helper” cannot mean a “subordinate role” for the woman? If anything, it would highlight the strength of Eve.

Building on these mistaken assumptions, the article then suggests that

“God never planned for a woman to fill a man’s role. She is out of her God-ordained place when she assumes leadership in the home, the workforce, the church, or the nation. She was not created to be an executive, wear a hard hat, and the like.”

This statement reveals a central issue: an either/or mentality sets up a false alternative – either the woman stays at home and stifles Christ within her, or she expresses Christ outside the home and forsakes her domestic responsibilities. This approach flies in the face of the Biblical narrative.

What about Deborah and Huldah? They were both prophetesses and both expressed their gifts outside the home in the community of Israel. Yet, they were both married, and probably had children (Judges 4:4; 5:7; 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron. 34:22). Deborah also functioned as a Judge – “Deborah would sit under the Palm Tree of Deborah, which was between the cities of Ramah and Bethel, in the mountains of Ephraim. And the people of Israel would come to her to settle their disputes” (Judges 4:5).

What about the many women who traveled with Jesus and the male disciples (Luke 8:1-3)? They even supported Jesus and the twelve with their own resources. Shouldn’t they have been dutifully in their homes cleaning, cooking and baking? It was scandalous for a rabbi to have female disciples, and even more scandalous to have them traveling with Jesus’ entourage!

What about Phoebe? She was a deacon in the ekklesia of Cenchrea (Romans 16:1-2). What about Junia? She was outstanding among the apostles as an itinerant worker (Romans 16:7). Why does Paul designate some women as “co-workers,” the same word used for apostolic assistants like Titus and Timothy? Why does the New Testament not have any problem with sisters praying and prophesying in the gatherings of the saints (Acts 2:17-18; 1 Corinthians 11:5)?

As a side note, it is interesting to observe that those who place a heavy emphasis on a woman’s head being covered also usually forbid women to speak in the assembly. But that is the opposite direction from where Paul landed. Paul’s goal was for women to function with praying and prophesying, not to silence them (1 Cor. 11:5, 13).

The view that women are confined to the kitchen is usually linked with the idea that all good believing girls will get married and have children. But under the new covenant singleness is a viable option for men and women (Matthew 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 7). To put younger and older women under heavy guilt if they do not pursue marriage is to deny the freedom Christ has bestowed upon us.

In Luke 10:38-42 we find a beautiful story that shows us vividly the Lord’s heart. Mary was in the “men’s space,” learning at Jesus’ feet. Martha was carrying out the responsibilities connected to having guests. She was frustrated that Mary was not helping with the preparations, but abiding in the living room with the male disciples. Jesus in no way put down what Martha was doing, but he did make it clear that Mary’s choice to be outside the kitchen was an excellent and acceptable one.

Nothing I have said should be taken as a downplaying or demeaning of motherhood. I am simply trying to bring needed perspective to a view that tightly and narrowly defines the “role” of women in a way that is seriously out of alignment with Christ’s revelation. Deborah held the public position of Judge, she publicly carried out her gifts as a prophetess, and yet she was also a “mother in Israel.”

– Jon Zens

For further reflection:

Karen Campbell’s article, “The Cult of ‘Godly’ Womanhood,” is soon to appear in the Midwest Christian Outreach Journal. Here is a shortened version of this excellent piece: http://www.thatmom.com/2011/07/21/the-sins-of-partiality-and-triviality-and-the-curriculum-that-promotes-them/

Jamal Jivanjee has put together many vital perspectives in his blog-post, “The Universal Enslavement of Women”: http://jamaljivanjee.com/2011/09/the-universal-enslavement-of-women/

Jon Zens, No Will of My Own: How Patriarchy Smothers Female Dignity & Personhood. http://www.amazon.com/No-Will-Own-Patriarchy-Personhood/dp/0982744633/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=131899

Jon Zens, What’s With Paul & Women? Unlocking the Cultural Background to 1 Timothy 2. http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Paul-Women-Jon-Zens/dp/0976522292

Posted in Women in the Ekklesia | 5 Comments

CHRIST LOVES US, NOT OUR ADORNMENTS!

Posted on August 31, 2011 by Jon Zens

In the evenings, Dotty and I are reading through Bob Emery’s “His Desire Is For Me: The Story of Solomon & the Shulammite — A 30-Day Devotional & Commentary on the Song of Solomon” (ISBN 9781935265771). In the book, He unfolds numerous parallels between the Song of Songs and Christ and his bride.

A few nights ago a statement in the narrative caught my attention –

“My hair was pulled high over my head, revealing my prominent cheekbones. Gazing at them, he commented tenderly, ‘Your cheeks are lovely, and your earrings set them aflame with fire.’

Then, looking at the strings of beads with which I had decorated my neck, he said, ‘Your neck, too, is lovely with strings of beads. But we will make for you ornaments of gold with beads of silver!’

His eyes went back to my own, and I realized that, although he had graciously complimented my adornments, they were not what drew him to me. He was looking at me — not the things I had donned to please him” (page 50).

Just as we should love Christ — and not the its and things about him — so Christ loves us as his people — not the things we do because we love him!

Many of you would really profit from this book! — Jon Zens

Dotty, Kaitlyn NC 2010

Posted in Jesus & the Bride | Tagged , | 2 Comments

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO WAKE UP TO REALITY? The Nightmare of the Pastoral Institution

Posted on August 9, 2011 by Jon Zens

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Galli of Christianity Today has given us another article in a string of many that candidly lays out some serious problems resident in the traditional one-pastor system (August 8, 2011, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/julyweb-only/mostriskyprofession.html?start=1). It is titled, “The Most Risky Profession: Why you need to pray desperately for your pastor.”

Notice the near-fatal weaknesses Mark points out in the American pastoral institution:

** “The state of the modern American pastorate has been shaped so that these sins – especially pride and hypocrisy – are impossible to escape.

** “[Pastors] are in a profession that is about as morally risky as they come.”

** “American churches exalt and isolate their leaders almost by design.”

** “Churches . . . like to know that someone is in charge, that someone is attending to the details, that someone is getting things done. That’s why they’ve hired this dynamic, forward looking, administratively savvy leader.”

** “[There] is the expectation that he also be the cathartic head of the church . . . . someone to whom they can relate – at a distance. This is key, because the pastor has time to relate to very, very few members.”

** “Most pastors have become heads of personality cults. Churches become identified more with the pastor – this is Such-and-Such’s church – than anything larger. When the pastor leaves, or is forced to leave, it’s devastating. It feels like a divorce . . .”

** “No wonder pastors complain about how lonely and isolated they feel.”

** “And so we have a system in which pride and hypocrisy are inevitable.”

** “He’s stuck in a religious system from which few escape unscathed.”

When I read surveys of the pastoral landscape like Mark has given us, I feel burdened because there is something huge that is glaringly absent from the books and articles about “the pastor.” They all assume that the one-pastor system we function under is what we must work with, and we just need to put band-aids on it to make it all better.

This is a fatal assumption that we must jettison. Mark notes that “shepherd” is “the biblical word for this position.” But the truth is, the traditional notion of “the pastor” cannot be found in the narrative unfolded in the New Testament. There is nothing in the New Testament about the “position” of pastor created by church traditions.

Since this is true, then here are the questions we should really be dealing with:

** Why do we put unbearable burdens and expectations on “the pastor,” when this is an “office” unknown in the New Testament?

** When will we stop hurting those in the “clergy” by continuing a system that is out of touch with Christ’s revelation?

** When will we discontinue trying to fix a pastoral system that finds no merit in the New Testament?

** If a patient had gum cancer and a doctor advised him that the solution was to brush his teeth thirty-two times a day, we would call that insanity. Why, then, do we do the same thing by never examining the root problem of the one-pastor system, and assuming we just need a better spiritual tooth brush to get the nagging problems cleaned up?

The root issue is that our practice of putting all our churchy eggs in the pastoral basket – essentially trying to build church upon the presence and expression of one gift – is a mistake of mammoth proportions, and is without biblical warrant. We need to be “radical,” that is, go to the root, and cease the meaningless surface discussions that reinforce a hurtful system.

We need to eliminate the connection of service in the body of Christ with a “profession.” Something is very wrong when being a pastor is a career choice. We need to pray desperately that the giftedness of the whole ekklesia will blossom in communities where the life of Christ is flowing like living waters.

By Jon Zens

(I have labored to “go to the root” concerning the fundamental problems and questions surrounding “the pastor” in my book, The Pastor Has No Clothes: Moving from Clergy-Centered Church to Christ-Centered Ekklesia. It is available at www.jonzens.com and Amazon at http://amzn.to/p9n7w8 ).

Posted in Ekklesia Life, Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Does It All Boil Down to Pulpit & Pew?

Posted on July 16, 2011 by Jon Zens

The Pastor, 1982, Published by Searching Together, Cover image by Perry Bergman

 

My heart is burdened concerning a phenomenon I’ve witnessed over and over again. It goes something like this: I would never pursue anything in my personal life in Christ without seeking the Lord for his will, but when it comes to my life together with others in Christ’s body I pretty much accept church structures as they are in my community, and don’t ask any questions.

Many people exert great diligence about the Lord’s will in how they live Monday through Saturday, but on Sunday they can step into a church building and just assume that what is going on is God’s revealed will. If we have a passion to be led by the revelation of Christ in our personal lives, why don’t we apply that same fervor to our pursuit of Christ in his Body? Why is revelation about our personal lives deemed vital, but revelation concerning Christ’s church viewed as optional?

Some believers are brought to apply the same concern for the Lord’s will in their personal lives to their practice of church. They often come to see — experience a “revelation,” if you will — that a lot of what goes on is human tradition, not the Lord’s revealed will. Such traditions are not neutral. Jesus said that they nullify God’s Word.

Many who have this revelation, however, end up returning to follow a church bulletin. This happens for any number of reasons. But my concern is this: how can a person who has tasted something of what community is really about go back to feeling comfortable putting money in a plate and listening to a sermon?

On the back cover of my book, The Pastor Has No Clothes, it says:

“The pulpit,” suggested Paul Watts in 2000, “stands for the authoritative Word of God, its public reading and preaching. The pew, through long usage, has become a symbol for the hearing and reception of that word.” Is this what church boils down to: pulpit and pew? You would think so by the prevalent ways church is practiced.

If somebody pointed out an area of your life that needed more of Christ, you would be very concerned. But people can go on year after year stuck in a pulpit-and-pew routine and never lift a finger to question the status quo. They know this way of doing things is not in the New Testament, but the religious machine is intimidating. Again, why do people have no hesitation in being watchful in their personal lives, but show no concern for what is missing in their body-life with others?

As I’ve driven the roads across America this question has lodged in my mind: Do we really believe that the tangled mess of competing church organizations, costly buildings, church politics and bureaucracy, inordinate focus on the pastor, and endless church splits are what Jesus had in mind when he announced, “I will build my community”? I don’t think so (Jon Zens, A Church Building Every ½ Mile, p.72).

If a friend told you that your life as a believer seemed to be veering away from Christ, your ears would perk up. If that same friend told you that church as pulpit-and-pew was far from Christ’s heart, you might just shrug your shoulders and drive on to the building for the next service. I appeal to you to consider this: that response is an approach to truth that you would never tolerate or condone in the living of your own daily life before Jesus. I suggest that this is a troubling and deadly double standard.

Pulpit-and-pew have become everything in the Christian religion, yet there is nothing about them in the writings we claim to be a revelation of the Lord’s mind. If anything I have imparted resonates within your heart, will you bring that to Father and ask him what implications there may be for you?

By Jon Zens

Posted in Ekklesia Life | 17 Comments

UnInstitutional

Posted on June 23, 2011 by Jon Zens

We expect the proliferation of institutions and hierarchies in the human realm — business, government, the military, education. But there is no place for such things in the Lord’s ekklesia because it is not a human organization. It is a spiritual temple whose Builder and Maker is Christ.

Probably most of us have been part of some group in school, college, church or society that started out with excitement and verve, but after a period of time ended up in stagnancy and micro-management. The members found themselves maintaining the shell when in fact the original vibrancy was gone.

Bob Lupton makes some astute observations along these lines in his article, “The Cycle of Life.” However, there is one fatal flaw in the article: he assumes that when a group moves from its organic beginnings to its institutionalization that it somehow always remains organic. Not so. Becoming established as an institution is a retrogression that kills organic life. Listen carefully to what Bob says:

The Western church is in such a decline. Viewed against the backdrop of history, however, the current demise of denominations is predictable. In time, all institutions follow a similar pattern.  They begin as fresh movements, new and exciting, abundant with vision and creativity.  But in order to survive, a movement must development structural strength – mission statement, doctrinal distinctives, leadership structure, decision-making processes.

Vigorous change takes place during this organizational phase as a seedling becomes established, sinking its roots and spreading its branches.  Staff are hired, budgets are created, policies are instituted, goals and objectives are set, property is purchased.  As the organization matures it becomes a source of security for its employees.  Health insurance, vacation pay, cost of living raises, retirement benefits are negotiated.  Gradually the mission shifts from the founding visionaries to hired employees and with each subsequent ring of management the passion that originally inspired the movement becomes slightly diluted.  Marketing, management, and funding consume increasing amounts of organizational energy.  With its own sturdy root system, it now commands its fair share of sunlight and space on the forest floor.

By the time the organization enters the institutional phase of its development, it is fully vested in its own self-preservation. Instead of a movement spending itself on behalf of a noble cause, it has become a respectable institution consumed with preserving its own viability and legacy. It may still use the same stirring language of its past movement days, and it may still perform important work, but it spends the lion’s share of its energy on buildings, communication systems, internal politics and self-promotion to ensure its longevity. Good stewardship demands its preservation. It is the way of all institutions” (Bob Lupton, “Cycle of Life,” September, 2010, http://fcsministries.org/urban-perspectives/page/2/).

I think an overview of human history would justify the observation that people have a propensity to move from simple beginnings to bureaucratic mazes at the end of the day. This is certainly what occurred as history moved on from the early church to the post-apostolic church.

Take the Lord’s Supper, for example. What began as believers remembering the Lord in a simple meal morphed into a complicated liturgical “sacrament” which had to be officiated by a specially ordained religious person. Emil Brunner documented many such occasions where simplicity was overtaken by complexity in The Misunderstanding of the Church (1952).

James D.G. Dunn noted that “increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism,” and that “such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change” (Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, Westminster Press, 1977, p. 351). Bob Lupton suggests that “in order to survive, a movement must development structural strength – mission statement, doctrinal distinctives, leadership structure, decision-making processes.” These are the crucial questions we must face: Must the communal life of Christ in believers be institutionalized in order to survive? Was the movement from early church simplicity to later church bureaucracy inevitable and good, or a terrible distortion and tragedy?

The truth is that in our practice we have tried to institutionalize the living Christ. That which is organic cannot thrive in an institutional environment. The DNA does not match. Of course, it must be said that there are people in many church-institutions who are expressions of the living Christ. But the living Christ is not a fit for institutional structures. It would be like hoping that an orchid would flourish in a barren desert, or that a cactus would do well in a rainforest.

If we believe that the simplicity of Christ is truth worth continuing, then we must resist our tendency toward institutionalism with every fiber of our being. If believers were satisfied with Jesus Christ alone, institutions wouldn’t have a chance of taking over.

Frederick Buechner pointed out that churches could learn a lot from support groups like AA. They do not own buildings and have virtually no overhead. “They make you wonder,” he went on to say, “if the best thing that could happen to many a church might not be to have its building burn down and to lose all its money. Then all that the people would have left would be God and each other” (cited in my A Church Building Every ½ Mile: What Makes American Christianity Tick? 2008, p.72).

Mary Pipher perceptively noted, “Too often [health] institutions are about the needs of the institution, not of the patients” (Another Country, 2000, p. 167). Jesus did not come to start another religious institution with every candle and pulpit in its proper place. By giving his life in crucifixion, taking his life back in resurrection, returning to Father by his ascension, and pouring out his Spirit on the day of Pentecost – he assured that his people would express his life in them as the Body of Christ on earth – organically, not as an institution. – Jon Zens

Posted in Ekklesia Life | Tagged | 41 Comments

An Important Book for Our Times!

Posted on May 31, 2011 by Jon Zens

REVISE US AGAIN: Living from a Renewed Christian Script

by Frank Viola (David C. Cook, 2011, 174 pages).

 

This is a singularly refreshing book. Frank tackles some very thorny issues – like how Christians use the phrase “God told me to . . .” – with remarkable candor and wisdom. In the process he corrects the traditional script we have inherited and opens the door for us to express the freedom we have in Christ in a much fuller way. In a vital sense this book is about fleshing out our unity in Christ. How do we deal with doctrinal differences? How can we communicate better with one another? How can we discern what is central and peripheral in our relationships with one another? Most of all, this book throbs with Christ at the center of everything – especially in our life with other Christians.

It would appear that the Body of Christ could use a big dose of maturity in light of what goes on in what calls itself “church,” and in view of what transpires in the e-world of communication. If the contents of Revise Us Again were taken to heart and practiced, the maturity level of believers would rise immensely.

While all the chapters are uplifting and challenging, I found “Captured by the Same Spirit You Oppose” to be the one most needful for my own heart. The first several years of my life in Christ were spent in a movement that prided itself in having the truth and standing for the truth. Sadly, they were often captured by the very spirit they allegedly opposed. They judged people’s motives and invented hoops others had to jump through, or be disfellowshipped. I believe that by God’s grace in Christ I have moved far away from this snare, but Frank’s words were an important reminder of how we can stray from loving others fervently.

I hope you will read this book and find nuggets to foster your own growth in Jesus!   — Jon Zens

Click here to order the book in print, kindle, or audiobook.

Click here to read excerpts and watch the video trailer.

 

Posted in Book Notices | 2 Comments