RESTORING BIBLICAL LEADERSHIP FOUNDATIONS

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. Ephesians 2


There is no portion of the New Testament that is more given over to expounding he nature of church than the Book of Ephesians. It has been noted by most scholars that even though we call the letter by the name of a city in Asia Minor, copies have been discovered without the reference to that city. The common assumption is that the letter became a circular letter addressed to churches everywhere. It is possible that Paul intended this from the beginning. Support for this idea is drawn from the fact that there are absolutely no personal identificational references in the book as there are in almost every other letter that Paul wrote. The point here is that this letter was considered foundational teaching to the church – then and now.

It is clear from both the New Testament and from the experience of the church through the centuries of Christian History that there is no proscriptive leadership structure for the church. We are not given a model constitution. We are not told exactly what offices should be designated. We are given some examples of how leadership operated and there are some clear descriptions of the anointings that undergird that leadership. For this reason we should be a little hesitant about creating our own rules and regulations as if a particular system is endorsed by Scripture. Having said that, we should be even more earnest about establishing leadership that does come from a combination of sound Biblical exegesis and genuine Holy Spirit authority. In addition we should be more zealous again to observe the fruit of a leadership ministry since we are told that we will know the genuineness of a ministry by its fruit.

In the letter written by Paul from prison, he references just four broad issues as those to which the churches should give careful attention

The identity of a believer in Christ (1:1-2:10)
Unity between Jews and Gentiles (2:11-4:16)
Christian lifestyle values (4:17-6:9)
Weapons for Spiritual warfare (6:10-24)

It is significant that the teaching from the letter about leadership for churches comes in the section dedicated to unity. It could be strongly argued that unity is generally a leadership issue. When you have the right leaders and when you have the right attitude to leadership there is unity. When you have the wrong leaders OR the wrong attitude to leadership you will have disunity. That conclusion would be strongly supported by the experiences of the church in Christian history. Three times in this letter the leadership functions of apostles and prophets are referenced contiguously[1]. On one other occasion in Paul’s letters we see the same kind of reference[2].

restoration through the Christian centuries
There is no doubt about the fact that God has been patiently but powerfully restoring core truth to the church. There are various ways people refer to this but I will reference this outline for the sake of simplicity:
Sixteenth/Seventeenth Century Authority of Scripture; Justification by Faith
Eighteenth Century Evangelism; holiness
Nineteenth Century World wide missions
Twentieth Century Holy Spirit gifts and power
Twenty First Century Leadership (?)


Leadership Foundations

If we are to take Christian leadership seriously we have to grab hold of everything that the Bible seems to talk about but we don’t yet see happening. This is true in the western church for things like signs and wonders. Most of us are seeking God for an outpouring of His power the way we see it in Scripture. If we don’t see it happening like that, we simply pursue God and Christian ministry in every way we can with the expectation that God will bring us to a time when we see with our eyes what we read in the New (and Old) Testament. The same needs to be true for leadership.

Two critical issues are absorbed into the Ephesians references to leadership: unity and maturity. When Paul is speaking about the church becoming a household, or a temple or a body where there is no divisions between Jew or Gentile (an idea that was so controversial in the first century that people were killed and persecuted for holding the view) he refers to the cross as the reason for the possibility of that oneness. He refers to leadership as the foundational framework in which that oneness should develop (Ephesians 2:20) Then in the fourth chapter when he speaks about a time yet to come in the church when its expression of the fullness of Christ will reach its ultimate expression the empowering ministries of apostles and prophets (evangelists, pastors and teachers) are set forward as the critical success factor.

The difference between the two references seems to have to do with the difference between leadership and ministry. In Ephesians 2 the emphasis is on foundational leadership and in Ephesians 4 the emphasis seems to be on empowering ministry. It would also seem that the reference the anointings that God has placed in the church referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:28 support the idea that all ministry anointings are not leadership anointing. This point is very ably presented by Ian Jagelman in his book “The Empowered Church.”

It is my view that Ephesians 2:20 should be taken as a seminal text when identifying the core functions that provide the church with the ongoing leadership ministry that it needs to stay true to the core values and stay close to the heart of God.

Relationship and Sphere
When push comes to shove, the road to be travelled is undoubtedly one that is very much the less travelled as far as Christian ministry and church are concerned. The fact that apostles and prophets have rarely operated together and the fact that we all have a favourite story of some abuse of the gift or office has tended to see otherwise godly people default to some fabricated leadership structure that contains none of the elements of these functions, or only one of them. It needs to be remembered that we are not talking about the satisfaction of any personal ambition for status or importance, but for the church to find its way to the place where it will be in unity and it will be mature. The fact that we have had plenty of examples of evangelists, pastors and teachers without seeing either the unity or the maturity may well be a hint about the fact that we have not really embraced the decisive issue. Remember that leadership is a two way operation. It needs to be desired by the members and rightly provided by those who have anointing and calling.

I think our cautions have basically been unwarranted and I think we have been willing to overuse a few patent examples of failure. If these callings and anointings exist, it is the task of believers to “honour the experiment” and the task of the people with calling and anointing in these areas to take up the challenge. That challenge is two-fold. Jesus will always be the only cornerstone and the anointing will always produce the fruit of genuine unity and genuine maturity.

In the end it comes down to a matter of relationships and sphere. For the dual functions to operate there needs to be relationship and trust. For those functions to be appropriate there needs to be clear evidence that the people representing these functions do have anointing for the sphere in which they are to exercise leadership.

Brian Medway
February 27, 2006
[1] Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11
[2] 1 Corinthians 12:28

IS THERE A SHAPE FOR THE CHURCH TO COME?

There is a lot of discussion going on about church at the moment. Recent books by George Barna[1] and James Rutz[2] have stirred the pot once again by making credible challenges to the idea that the shape of church in the west is in good hands and in good shape as it makes the presence and Lordship of Jesus tangible to western society. In defense of their critique it must be said that the bottom line doesn’t look good in any of the major western nations. If the increase of believers against overall population is any measure (and it should be) then neither the UK, nor the US, nor the nations of Europe, nor Australia have much to say. The truth is it is either lagging behind or maintaining the status quo. Compared to the church in many non-western nations it must be a re-run of the song that topped the charts late in the 11th century BC that went, “Saul has slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands” That is if you take Saul to represent the western church and David to represent the non-western church.

One of the things that interests me about the reaction to Barna in the US is the defensive venom that characterizes it. Articles such as the Charisma magazine editor, J. Lee Grady[3], evidence the length to which representatives of the largely failed western institutional model for church are prepared to go There’s just one phrase in that article that says it all. “What George Barna wants to do is to reinvent the church without its Biblical structure.” You have to assume that the institutional model to which Grady refers is Biblical. You would have to read the article to see whether my observation is correct; but I think he gets leadership and institutional structure mixed up. He more or less assumes that if you have small groups of people becoming church that there is no anointed leadership.

I welcome the debate. I feel strongly that it is not warranted either to condone or condemn a particular model for doing church. I find venomous defenses of failed church models extremely toxic. I also find quixotic platitudes about the flawless ultimacy of “free church” a little hard to take. When you read James Rutz, the early chapters of the book are exciting, stimulating and informative. When you get to the last chapters and see that what has gone before emerges as a polemic for house churches over against institutional churches I am disappointed.

The very term “free church” seems to be an invention necessitated by the fact that house church has largely been associate with “rebellious, self engrossed church” in the west. I am more than willing to be corrected but I can’t think of a “cell church” model that has produced enough fruit in Australia to be worth a second look. So many churches took up the “cell based” idea. Many actually foundered at some point along the way. The invention of the term is not the problem. The problem only appears on the radar when the model is put forward as the form of the “end time church.” At the point of this ultimacy a tool becomes a monument in my books.

The other problem I see when the alternatives suggested only include “institutional church” and “free church.” There are all kinds of churches. We need all kinds of churches. That doesn’t mean that every model of doing church is “quality neutral.” There is a post-modern demon lurking in the idea that every choice is of equal value. At the end of the day, the model of church must not be a matter of personal preference. It must have to do with what gets the job done. Church is a tool that Jesus invented to do ajob. He didn’t patent a particular model that’s for sure. Neither did he deliberately leave a few lines blank in the prescription to pander to our fallen ideas of personal preference. Personal preference is a product of western culture based firmly on the principles of this world rather than God.

Church is a tool. Its shape must be determined by the particulars of its redemptive mission. At the end of the day we will give account for the model of church we have chosen on the same basis as we will give account for everything else. It will have to do with whether we have done the job that Jesus wanted done with the tools Jesus has supplied.
So what church model you should prefer should be the one that most effectively does the job that Jesus invented it to do. In that there are all kinds of models. A model is a model is a model.
If Jesus doesn’t get to be the head of the way your model works you have a decapitated model.
If someone or something else is the head you have a monster model.
If members are allowed to be attached but non-functioning we have a paraplegic or quadriplegic model.
If your idea of church is not bashing down the door of some demonize stronghold and rescuing its incumbents you have an anemic model or a comatose model (take your pick).

Unlike the human body, the effectiveness or health of a certain idea of church can never be measured by internal calculations. This is one danger of doing the NCD (Natural Church Development) questionnaire. It only measures on the basis of people inside the church. I think we should ONLY measure the effectiveness of the model we choose by people who are in the community. We could start with Graham Cook’s great question: “What would it take for the people in the community to be thankful that your church is there?” It’s a valid question. It is also a Biblically valid question. If that question had been asked anywhere in Jerusalem, Judea or Galilee referring to the only true model for church (Jesus of Nazareth) the answer would have spoken for itself. When we receive the same answer in our generation we can THEN say something about the model. To speak about the model short of than reality is like the disciples arguing about who was greatest when Jesus has just chastened all of them for having no faith.[4]

Let the discussion roll on as far as I am concerned. Lets be careful about focusing on models as models. Lets focus on doing something that places the presiding presence of Jesus in the faces of every aspect of our society that claims any authority but His.


Brian Medway
[1] “Revolution” George Barna, 2005
[2] “Mega Shift” James Rutz, 2005
[3] http://www.charismanow.com/01-17-06/
[4] Matthew 9

Prayer This Week

Hi people,

I will be at early prayer as follows if you want to join me:

Wednesday 5:30-8:30 am
Thursday 5:30 - 7:30 am
Friday 6:00 - 8:00 am

This week is the Kong Hee meetings. I am going to be at all three meetings and I hope to see you there. Please call on God to move powerfully through the word and through signs that accompany it.

Thursday evening 7:00 for a 7:30 start
Friday morning 9:00
Friday evening sane as Thursday

At the Royal Theatre, National Convention Centre, Constitution Ave. Canberra City

Loud Music and Evangelistic Meetings

HIS FAME SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE REGION

Daryl James is a part of the team at Grace Canberra. We have been working together for a long time. Both of us are part of the group of churches sponsoring the Rev. Kong Hee outreach meetings in Canberra. The group of churches is called, "His Fame" taken from the Acts verse that says, "His fame (Jesus') spread throughout the region." There are just under thirty churches involved and we have been meeting together for a year and a half every Wednesday morning for an hour of prayer. In my memory of twenty two years, I don't think a city wide prayer meetings for pastors has lasted this long. The idea for that prayer meeting came from Daryl and it's a terrific bonus.

Part of the mother tongue for us here at Grace Canberra is to support the idea of the church in the city working together to see the kingdom of God come. That's why we support these meetings with Kong Hee. If the gospel is being preached and if the churches are working together to make it happen, then it would be major hypocrisy for us to do otherwise.


THE SOUND IS TOO LOUD
One of the things that people objected to when we went to pray at Parliament House last year (same group of churches) was the level of the sound. There is a cultural issue here that seems to be adopted by a lot of churches that comes from the world of most people under 35. The sound is too loud.

I feel this also. I don't like the noise and I don't like the message that it sends. Forget the culture. The message is that what is coming from the stage is more important than everything else and it doesn't really matter what happens beyond the edge of the stage because no one can hear anything else. It is a rock concert culture, pure and simple.

Not I wouldn't be one of those people who says it is anything like 'evil.' It isn't. In my view it is a case of the church adopting a part of contemporary culture. My own view is that it is unhealthy for a start and it makes the wrong point to me.

RESOLVING THE DILEMMA
So I am presented with a dilemma. My core values make my calling from God to be one with my brothers and sisters in reaching people for Christ in the city is clear, but my preferences are totally unrepresented. I am aware that other people share this dilemma and so I offer a resolve that I consider to be worthy of the God of all glory:

I am going to buy a packet of ear plugs. I am going to use them myself and if the people I take to the meetings find the noise too loud I will offer them what I have. I will say, "silver and gold I do not have, but such as I have I give you....take a pair of ear plugs!" In other words I think there is much more to be gained by me taking steps to avoid the problem with my ear drums and packing into the scrum with the other churches than staying at home in quiet protest. To stay at home will be to miss one of a very few opportunities to stand on the battle line with brothers and sisters in Christ who want to see people saved. We have the opportunity to stand in a place with one mind and one heart: a mind that honours the good news of the gospel and a heart that wants to see people in the city come to Christ.

If the sound IS too loud, I will have my say at the appropriate time so that my brothers and sisters have the opportunity to hear my heart and respond in whatever way they like.

I hope you will join with us in taking up the opportunity.

Have a listen to this paraphrase of Philippians Chapter One:

"Some preach Christ with music that is so loud that it hurts my ears and but others with music that is great to listen to....... the former preach Christ using some values from contemporary youth music culture.....but what does it matter. The important thing is that in every way and with whatever kind of music Christ is preached. And because of this I will wear ear plugs and you can count me in." (15-18)

Brian Medway