Miguel Labrador's Blog, page 11

So, Tell Me Again Why ‘They’re Leaving The Church?’

In their book “Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong?,” James F. Engel and William A. Dyrness state the following:

“It is undeniable that the church is no longer conceived by the vast majority as the cultural space where certain critical things happen, even as its institutional shape communicates traditional notions. Indeed postmodernity has drastically undermined a view of culture in which religious faith in general and Christian belief in particular provided the unifying bonds for a coherent worldview. Today, given the pervasiveness of pluralism and the accompanying ethnic and social diversity, this is no longer credible for many people. In fact, so single voice or entity can claim to speak for everyone today. As a result, many traditional structures are under attack, including the institutional church.”

 

They go on to say that:

… “it is not hard to see why so many in today’s world do not relate to the church as it is currently organized. It appears to be large and bureaucratic in the face of a widespread desire for close and intimate relationships. The often abstract moral codes it offers do not touch the postmoderns’ spiritual quest for personal fulfillment. In short, the church is seen to harbor hypocrites rather than genuine strugglers for meaning. A primary characteristic of today’s postmodern generation is its suspicion of large, impersonal structures and its longing for community. We see this as a wonderful opportunity for the church and for the missionary life that should characterize this church.”

The sentence that strikes me in the above section is this:

“It is undeniable that the church is no longer conceived by the vast majority as the cultural space where certain critical things happen, even as its institutional shape communicates traditional notions.”  It’s very similar to George Hunsberger’s concern that we’ve reduced the church to ” a place where things happen.”[1]  If the church is defining itself as that, and those outside of the church are debunking that definition, then perhaps it’s time for the church to redefine what it actually is.

I think the above quotes lend much towards understanding why certain groups are “leaving the church,” but also address some key questions which need to be asked:

1.  Is this view of the church universal and embraced by all post-moderns, or are there, like there have always been, pockets of differing thoughts throughout the world and its diverse cultural contexts?

2.  Is it true that “no single voice or entity can claim to speak for everyone?” Isn’t that the core premise of Christ and Christianity?

3.  Does the structure or organization of the church help or hinder the transmission of its message?

4.  Is the church suppose to be a place for those who are “struggling for meaning?”

5.  If the post-modern mind “longs for community,” then how is that any different different than the pre-modern or modern thinkers and how does it change mission which has always been birthed in community?

[1] Hunsberger and Van Gelder, 337

 

                         
CommentsIs it true that “no single voice or entity can claim to speak ... by Ross RohdeRelated StoriesIf The School of Tyrannus Wasn’t A Seminary, Then What Was It? Besides, What’s Wrong With Seminary Anyway?The Parable of the Rich Young DisciplerTraining Every Believer For Mission, Not Just Pastoral Care For Congregations 

Paul And Barnabas As Second Generation Disciple Makers… And Why it Matters

After Peter evangelizes in Solomon’s Portico and his subsequent arrest and release, we see the birth of an entire new generation of disciples. While it may not be normative for all new groups of disciples to start this way, we see that:

They believed the message of the Gospel.
They were of one heart and soul.
They freely shared their material goods.
They listen intently to the Apostles testimony of Jesus’ resurrection.
There was “Great Grace” upon them all.
There were no unmet needs amongst them.
(Acts 4:32-35)

One of these new believer/disciples was Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”).  He sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4:36,37)

Later, after Saul’s conversion, we see Joseph, now called “Barnabas” and Saul, now called “Paul,” teaming up to make disciples like Jesus had commanded the first generation to do.  (Matthew 28:18,19,20)  They are mentioned together no less than 30 times in the book of Acts alone.

In Acts 14, we see that having entered Derbe, Paul and Barnabas “preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples.” (Acts 14:21)  This is significant, because it demonstrates clearly that Jesus’ command for His first generation of disciple makers quite naturally carried on into the second generation of disciples.  There is no indication in scripture that this reproductive process was to cease.

It’s important to note here that these disciples were not enamored with the process of making disciples, but motivated by their love of Christ to keep it going.  “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)  A disciple of Jesus doesn’t get to choose which commands he or she obeys, a disciple of Jesus obeys or observes “ALL” that Jesus commanded. (Matthew 20:20)  Within that “ALL,” is the command to Make Disciples.  This was clearly understood and assumed by second generation disciples.  A few questions:

1.  If the generational passing on of disciple making ceased, when and why?

2.  Is there any reasonable argument that can clearly demonstrate that disciple making was a first generation responsibility only?

3.  Are there any of Jesus’ commands, the ones he was referring to  in Matthew 20:20, that we no longer need to obey or teach others to obey?  Which ones? 

 

                        Related StoriesPaul And Barnabas As Second Generation Disciple Makers… And Why it MattersThe Parable of the Rich Young DisciplerIf The School of Tyrannus Wasn’t A Seminary, Then What Was It? Besides, What’s Wrong With Seminary Anyway? 

What’s the Difference Between ‘Always Reforming,’ and ‘Seeking to be Relevant?’

Many call “FOUL!” when others try to bring relevance to the way the church conducts itself, or when it seeks to contextualize the manner in which the gospel is brought forth.  They erroneously assume that doing either effectively changes the Message and distorts the nature of the Man, Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5)  In addition, the accusations like “you’re just following the spirit of the age,” and  ”you’re not being obedient to the faith,” are thrown out without consideration, without humility, and without the slightest re-examination to see “if these things are so.” (Acts 17:11)

“Therein lies the rub.”  Reformation or Relevance is to be examined by scripture.  The reformers cupped their hands for us to put our foot in so that they might lift us higher and see what they could not.  That might sound arrogant, but the church is to be continuously renewed according the transformation of the minds of its members.  We’re still being equipped for service, we’re still being built up, we’re still striving for stability, unity, and maturity.  We’re still, or should be after the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11,12,13)   

Do not be conformed or fashion yourselves (plural) according this world, but continuously be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you may be able to determine what God’s will is—what is proper, pleasing, and perfect.  (Romans 12:2)

 

The pendulum swings towards “what we once were,” instead of “who we’re intended to be.”  Others are stuck in preserving for preservation’s sake or changing for change’s sake. The friction between “bearing fruit” & “returning to the root” persists.  ”Older is better,” some proclaim, but that sort of thinking would make dirt better than the Adam from where he came.  

“Ecclesia semper reformanda” (the church always being reformed), was the cry from many reformers, and is the same cry from today’s relevance seekers.  What’s the difference between reforming or bringing relevance,  when it’s brought under God’s revelation? (The Scriptures)

So, relevance and reformation are not really the issue after all.  This issue is, and has always been, where does God want the church now?  Where does the Father want us to go?  What does the Father want us to say?  And, What does the Father want us to do? (John 5:19)  Now, some of you may say… “but we already know all of those things!”  To me, that smacks of the same arrogance as those who accuse the modern-day questioner.  In that light, I have one question:

What’s wrong with always reforming and always seeking to be relevant as long as we use God’s revelation as our guide? 

 

                        Related StoriesEvangelism – Which Comes First? Law, Gospel, or Neither?Women Want A Place in the Hierarchy of the Church.The Parable of the Rich Young Discipler 

Women Want A Place in the Hierarchy of the Church.

Several thought-provoking statements in this 60 Minutes piece. One that sticks out in my mind is that “women want a place in the hierarchy of the church, and a seat at the table.”  One more time folks… there is no hierarchy in the church. Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, 1 Peter 5:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, etc.

Topple the hierarchy, and I believe the displacement of women soon follow. Making a hierarchy “all-inclusive” only serves to strengthen the pyramid scheme that Jesus didn’t want in the first place.  It’s a modern-day Tower of Babel that will only foster further separation between the artificially created “clergy class,” and “the laity.”

Before my evangelical friends dismiss this entire argument because the piece deals primarily with the Roman Catholic Church, ask yourselves if you’re guilty of the same.  We need to stop asking questions like “should women be behind the pulpit?” and start asking “Should there should be pulpits at all?”  

What do you think? 

 

 

                         
CommentsTwin errors: hierarchy, and the failure of men to be leading in ... by MarshallRelated StoriesTraining Every Believer For Mission, Not Just Pastoral Care For CongregationsFor Where Your Church Treasure is, There your Mission Heart Will be Also.The Gospel Is Hate Speech. 

The Parable of the Rich Young Discipler

A friend told me a story last night of a young man who received the gospel message with great joy. The young man was THERE in the church when there was singing. He was THERE in the church when there was preaching. He was THERE in the church for community meals and celebration. One day, the man wanted to go out THERE and preach the gospel to another people, a people who did not have it. He asked my friend “I know I’m young in the faith, but I’d love to preach to those over THERE, may I?” My friend said “absolutely, and I’ll be by your side to correct and help you if needed.” When it came time to preach over THERE, the young man never showed up. After a time, my friend asked the young man where he was and he said, “Well, after thinking about it, I really don’t want to be out THERE, I want to be THERE in the church. I want to preach up THERE in the pulpit.

Ultimately, he decided he didn’t want to be in either “THERE” and is further from the faith then when he started.

What lesson would you draw from this real life parable? 

                        Related StoriesIf The School of Tyrannus Wasn’t A Seminary, Then What Was It? Besides, What’s Wrong With Seminary Anyway?Training Every Believer For Mission, Not Just Pastoral Care For CongregationsFor Where Your Church Treasure is, There your Mission Heart Will be Also. 

Being ‘Bi-Vocational’ in Developing Countries Doesn’t Look As Cool as it Does From A Privileged Perch

What do you do when you’re working full-time and receive a call into “full-time ministry?”  I know, you’re probably questioning the validity of “full-time ministry” as is commonly understood where a person gets a salaried position in a local church.  We can discuss that in the comment section if you’d like, but this post concerns another aspect.

It has become trendy to be bi-vocational.  Here in the Cloud Forest Region of Ecuador, every “Church-Leader” that we work alongside of, is naturally bi-vocational.  They all work a “day job,” AND do mission.  The difference here, is that the language of “bi-vocation” is not about compensation for existing ministers, lack of compensation for existing ministers, or supplementing the compensation of existing ministers.  It’s about sacrificing the potential of more income for the sake of mission, for Christ’s cause, and for the Kingdom.  For most here, it’s not about answering a call to full-time ministry and then taking on an additional more secular and more community integrated position.  It’s about basic survival, hard work, and contentment with sub-standard living conditions AND wanting to do more mission. Being bi-vocational here isn’t about being hip or trendy or even about being able to identify with the common person while saying “Look at me!  Even though I’m a minister, I work just like you.”  It’s rooted in a genuine desire to see God’s message and Messenger known in all of creation.

Let me give you a real life example;

There’s a young man here, we’ll call him “Marco.” Marco cuts the small trees from which hearts of palm are made.  He gets 2 cents per cut tree. These trees have 2 inch long needles up and down the trunk and are laden with various molds and other contagions which can cause infection when poked by them.  It’s steady work and he’s glad for it.  A while back, over a period of time, we shared the gospel with Marco and he received Christ.  Since then, he’s been growing in the strength of the Lord and has demonstrated a gift for preaching and mission.  He sometimes works from 5 A.M. to 7 P.M.  Likewise, he sometimes cuts his work short to join us on our mission outings.  To put it another way, he sacrifices part of his income to answer his calling.  

Marco came to me and expressed that he’s sensing God is calling him to do even more mission and become more active in local missions.  I can clearly see that he and his call are genuine.  The problem is that here in this region, it’s very difficult for the local communities to sustain gospel workers as described in 1 Corinthians 9:1–18.  For now, Marco accepts his situation and does what he can do as to mission while he attends to what he is doing in his vocation.  He’s gracious and humble, but eager.  Marco doesn’t have the privilege of choosing to be bi-vocational, he just is.  He knows that his “work life” and “ministry life” are really just one life.  He knows that while cutting trees or preaching the gospel, while harvesting palm hearts or working the harvest of human hearts, he serves God.

Marco has an eager expectation and prays that God will “free up” some time of being a machete chopper to be more of a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of human hearts through God’s Word.  It’s a noble aspiration.  Marco has demonstrated the faithfulness in little things.  

Marco is not frustrated.  I am.  We do what we can to make his hope a reality.  We join with him in prayer for him and his family.  We help financially where we can to free him up so that he can help set captives free.  So, you’ll have to excuse me if I think your radical and cool bi-vocationality isn’t so cool after all.  Marco makes under 300 dollars a month.  Here’s what I’d like to do:

I’d like to tell Marco to work part-time and do mission part-time. Specifically, I’d like get someone to sponsor Marco 51% of his current monthly income, or 153 dollars monthly, so that he could spend more than half of his time ministering the gospel in his own context.

Honestly, I have not convinced myself that this would be the right thing to do for Marco.  I’ve thought about it much and it has weighed on my heart.  So, for those of you who know a thing or two about working and ministering in developing countries, what would you do if you were in my shoes?  Would you help Marco go on mission?  Would you try to raise long-term committed support?  Yes, God will provide a way.  But I could be that way, and so could you.  What would you do?  What will you do?

I know of at least a dozen people in twice as many communities like Marco.  I want to free them all up and give them the gift of bi-vocatioanlity.  Am I being unreasonable?  Is there a better way? Would you like to sponsor someone like Marco?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                         
CommentsThese issues are reality for people all over the world. And I ... by Jason DillinghamThat's awesome Carlos, and great advice… except in rural ... by ClaudiaDon't know exactly what I would do in your situation to help ... by CarlosRelated StoriesTraining Every Believer For Mission, Not Just Pastoral Care For CongregationsFor Where Your Church Treasure is, There your Mission Heart Will be Also.The Gospel Is Hate Speech. 

Should Mission Strategy Always Be Congregationally Based?

Rick Warren once said, “In the first century, mission strategy was always congregationally based…. Local churches accepted the responsibility for Jesus’ Great Commission and his Great Commandment.” Today, Warren writes, that he sees that most local churches have become “sidelined and uninvolved” because the agencies are saying, “pray, pay and get out of the way.” Warren further challenges his readers: “I believe the proper role for all the great parachurch and relief organizations is to serve local churches in a supportive way, offering their expertise and knowledge, but allowing local churches around the world to be the central focus and the distribution centers.” [1]

 

Is Warren correct?  Was 1st century mission strategy “always” congregationally based?

Should parachurch and relief organizations serve local churches?  What do you think that means? How would it look?

Should local churches be the central focus and THE distribution centers?  What if the Mission strategized local churches instead of vice versa?  

 

 

 

[1] Paul Borthwick. Western Christians in Global Mission: What’s the Role of the North American Church? (Kindle Locations 822-826). Kindle Edition.

                         
Comments“parachurch” is a word in use describing a form of ministry ... by MarshallThere are no such things as para church organizations. It is ... by David BartholomewAs much as I think saying so is not going to change anyone's ... by CarlosRelated StoriesTraining Every Believer For Mission, Not Just Pastoral Care For CongregationsFor Where Your Church Treasure is, There your Mission Heart Will be Also.Are Local Churches Supposed to be Missional Turnstiles? 

A Half Puerto Rican’s Critique of A Black Missional Critique of the Missional Movement

Yesterday, there was a guest post on Drew G.I. Hart’s Blog by D. Kyle Canty entitled “A Black Missional Critique of the Missional Movement.” First, let me say that I loved this article! I’d suggest you read it in its entirety here before going on.

Along the same lines, I’m writing a series entitled “3 Hard Questions That Missional Folks Need To Ask.” You can read Part 1 here.

There are several poignant questions which the author asks in the article:

 

“Does the broader evangelical church in America recognize that there is something that they can learn from the African American church?”

I almost don’t like this question. Almost… I’d rather phrase it this way; “Do believers understand that they can learn from other believers?” When a question starts off with “don’t you recognize?” or “can’t you see?” it presupposes and accepts into evidence an ignorance not established. It’s almost like starting off the conversation from a position of superiority and assumes the very posture that the author is trying to point out. Maybe it’s just me, maybe it’s because I’ve been working in a poverty-stricken part of the world for over 7 years, maybe it’s because I’m part Latino and the same points that the author addresses concerning blacks may be equally applied for Latino people & churches. I don’t know. Being Missional transcends color, context, and culture. God is a missionary God. He is the “Sent and the Sending One.” Being Missional or missionary-ish, embracing an attitude of sent-ness has absolutely nothing to do with race until we force it into a racial package. Making Disciples, the essence and driving force of missionality, is a multi-dimensional command of Christ which transcends ethnicities. When Christ said to Make Disciples of the nations (all ethnic groups), he tore the curtain of any temple guarded philosophy of mission. While this question is important and must be considered, I fear it will ultimately detract from the missional conversation. Every believer can learn from, be encouraged by, be equipped, and strengthen any other believer.

‘Does a black pastor of an inner city church have anything to teach a white suburban pastor?’

Two things are to be considered here. The missional movement, in my opinion, is still trying to get to the core meaning of what a “pastor” is, and what a “church” is. Missional folks say that Christology informs Missiology, Missiology informs Ecclesiology. So, before we can ever get to answering this question from a missional perspective, we have to establish a common frame of reference. Again, I would rephrase the question in this way; “Are those that are pastoral, disposed to learn from, teach, and equip others? The missional DNA is rooted in the full functioning of the Ephesians 4 gifts of Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Evangelists, and Pastors.  The 5-fold people gifts are there for every believer to equip every believer for ministry. The single “head” pastor of a local “church” as commonly thought of outside of missional circles doesn’t necessarily speak to where the missional movement is going. All traditional views of pastors, preaching, and church are being turned on their edge and examined again.

Why is it so hard to sit down at this table called the Missional Movement?

This is an excellent question! I’ve felt the same frustration. I’ll be addressing this in part two of the above mentioned series, but I wanted to say that the author has a point here. The term “missional” has been co-opted by many who are trying to take over the navigation of the missional ship. Despite it’s best efforts, some missional thinkers have adopted a missional apologetic, a missional hermeneutic, and a tendency to mark their missional territories. It’s vocabulary, if we’re not careful can separate. One almost feels forced to embrace what the author calls a theological accent in order to fit in to the movement. We need to remind ourselves that we’re supposed to be loving our neighbors. Even our non-missional ones.

Who is able to speak to the ills of White Evangelicalism like the Black church?

Again, I love this question, but would rephrase it so as not to cloud the issue. “Who is able to speak to the ills of a poorly functioning part the church than a more healthy one?” There’s no need for one-upmanship on anyone’s part here. There’s no need to say that “we’re better than you, because we’ve been doing it longer and better than you.” That kind of language only separates one from another instead of serving one another, esteeming others higher than ourselves, and loving one another.

In spite of these critiques on the questions the author asks, I think the following statements are spot on:

“Although loosely associated, the decisions regarding the broader missional movement rest in the hands of the few. “

“Although there is this rediscovery of mission Dei and what it means to be sent, there is also a danger that the voices are predominantly white and suburban.”

“If the voices of the missional movement remain largely those of the dominant culture, then there is the possibility that the movement will begin to speak with a privileged accent.”

“The proverbial ‘table’ that is so often talked about is actually nestled inside evangelicalism’s board room.”

“One of the things that missional theology taught me was to question the things that contradicted God’s kingdom agenda.”

                        Related StoriesFor Where Your Church Treasure is, There your Mission Heart Will be Also.If The School of Tyrannus Wasn’t A Seminary, Then What Was It? Besides, What’s Wrong With Seminary Anyway?Training Every Believer For Mission, Not Just Pastoral Care For Congregations 

3 Hard Questions That Missional Folks Need To Ask

1.  Where should I be?

Remain in the situation that I am called? – This idea comes from 1 Corinthians 7:20 which states; “Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.” In other words, if you come to faith while being a sanitation worker, then you should stay in the sphere of saintly sanitation service, and be an example to those who do not yet know the Gospel of the Kingdom or it’s King. John the Baptizer alluded to the same idea when both tax collectors and soldiers, yes… soldiers, came to him for baptism asking “what shall we do?” In a sense, they were asking if they should leave their discredited, unsanctified, or contemptible professions. In both cases John never recommended that they leave their situation, but act in a way which served others and brought glory to the Lord.

Follow the Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Uttermost Trajectory – This idea comes from Acts 1:8 “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” This passage has been used to support the idea of working within one’s immediate context first, and then spiraling outward geographically towards the periphery. In other words, always pushing towards the fringes and sustaining outward movement.  Additionally, this thinking may include pushing outward culturally, ideologically, and philosophically into other camps or world views.  It’s been argued that this principle is prescriptive for all believers who desire to do mission.

Station and Season Approach – To me, this idea comes from several passages like Acts 14:28 “And they stayed there a long time with the disciples,” and its preceding verses Acts 14:21 “They preached the gospel in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch.” There are others examples of staying for a season or establishing a station for the equipping of the saints and for the furtherance of the gospel and then moving on.

I think that those of the “missional persuasion,”  myself included, should be careful about imposing our own convictions on others and telling them where we think they should be and how long they should be there. I think that all three scenarios above are valid and viable. Finally, the giftings of individuals in the body are diverse. These gifts often help to determine and balance between direction and destination. Being missional is not only living as sent where you are, but carrying sent-ness wherever you’re directed to go.

What are your thoughts?

In part II of this series I’ll address the next question;

“What if I don’t want to be Missional?“

 

Subscribe to this blog to be notified when Parts II and III are released. 

 

                         
CommentsThis is the part that confuses me the most. I really wish I ... by David WoodsMy husband and I studied for 4 years to be overseas ... by Kathleen WardRelated StoriesTraining Every Believer For Mission, Not Just Pastoral Care For CongregationsFor Where Your Church Treasure is, There your Mission Heart Will be Also.If The School of Tyrannus Wasn’t A Seminary, Then What Was It? Besides, What’s Wrong With Seminary Anyway? 

If The School of Tyrannus Wasn’t A Seminary, Then What Was It? Besides, What’s Wrong With Seminary Anyway?

In Ephesus where Paul reasoned and taught in the synagogue until the Gospel of the Kingdom clashed with the traditions of men, he also lectured, taught, reasoned, and bore witness to Christ crucified and many other things.  Like it or not, he used various mediums which are being held in contempt by post-modern thinkers.  Yes, teaching, discipling, equipping, encouraging, and strengthening the brethren, all happen best when it’s life on life in one’s context.  Better yet, in the location that God calls you to.  That can be your  neighborhood, the local Starbucks, the smoking section of an airport, or the Cloud Forest Region of Ecuador.  

 Paul lectured, taught, spoke, reasoned, preached, and interacted with students in the school of Tyrannus every day for 2 years!   We have an ancient text that adds information to the end of Acts 19:9, saying that Paul taught there “from the fifth hour to the tenth” [manuscript D Syriac (Western text)]. This was probably something that was written in the margin of a manuscript and ended up in the text itself through a copy error. The point is, the information probably represents either an authentic tradition that those were the hours Paul used to teach there, or those were the hours schools of this kind were normally unused by the owner and could be rented out for other public purposes. 

In Philippi, Paul worked from Lydia’s home (Acts 16:14-15), and in Thessalonica it seems he operated from Jason’s home (Acts 17:5-9). In Athens he used the marketplace and the Areopagus.  In Corinth, he used the residence of Justus (Acts 18:4-7)  Regardless, he had interactive “classes” with people which were sometimes practical in the sense of teaching as he did mission AND non-practical in the sense that he was passing on transforming information or data to be used later on in mission.  There’s nothing wrong with a class structure so long as it doesn’t become the only structure or the simple acquisition of knowledge. 

My friend Jeremy Pryor states;

“Many involved in church restoration see Paul’s methods as extremely simple and essentially free of structure; just encourage people to meet in homes, release gifts and live life in community. Each of these elements have been very helpful but they’ve neglected a necessary piece of Paul’s strategy which has thus far, rendered much of the house church / simple church practices virtually ineffective… I call this missing element the Tyrannus Effect.”

What is this Tyrannus Effect?  Jeremy goes on to explain: 

Churches form naturally around those who are being trained
Complacent converts are quickly changed to committed disciples
The level of discipleship city-wide is continually increasing
Unity among the churches is developed through a common discipleship process
New believers are immediately immersed in the essential “renewal of their mind”
Teaching and training gifts are released for the benefit of the whole city
Disciples have a city-wide Kingdom vision vs. a preoccupation on an individual church
Individual churches are deeply interconnected with one another and equipped simultaneously
Discussion-based training replaces sermonizing as a means to a long-lasting, faith-building group discovery experience.

So, tell me again what’s wrong with seminary, lecture hall, local church, or a class room setting for teaching the things of God to growing disciples?  Aren’t most objections to these “teaching” settings centered on the prevalent and unfortunate consequences of ecclesiastical laziness, lack of practical application, and the creation of an elite clergy force?  What about all the good and biblically beneficial aspects of these sorts of seasonal respites?

One final thought:  Some of you would simply say that no one in the body of Christ needs to be taught in those ways because the Holy Spirit teaches you directly and personally all you need to know to exist and equip others.  You are mistaken.  God gives the gift of teaching and teachers to the body for its edification. (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:1-12)

So, what’s the real problem with seminaries, class room instruction, and the like?  

 

                         
Commentsmodern seminary suffers things estranged to first century faith ... by MarshallAs everyone else has already written, the problem with ... by Chris JefferiesThat's a good point David. I don't think Paul would have ... by CarlosGood article and good question…what's wrong with seminaries? ... by Brian ConsidineHi Miguel, The relevant passage in Acts 19:8-10 says the ... by CarlosOne problem with the modern seminary system is that it limits ... by David BartholomewRelated StoriesTraining Every Believer For Mission, Not Just Pastoral Care For CongregationsMissional Leadership Does Not Isolate or SeparateSabbath & Mission