"We have found in our context that most learning and training takes place not through programmed teaching or training courses but in unplanned conversations—talking about life, talking about ministry, talking about problems.
Let us make a bold statement: truth cannot be taught effectively outside of close relationships. The reason is that truth is not primarily formal; it is dynamic. The truth of the gospel becomes compelling as we see it transforming lives in the rub of daily, messy relationships. Jay Adams says, “A whole person will affect whole persons on all levels; that is the goal of discipleship training. . . . It all involves commitment to God. Therefore, truth incarnated in life is the goal. For reaching this goal, only one method is possible—the biblical one—discipleship. Whole persons must teach whole persons; the Word must be made flesh.”
You could start simply by telling someone today about your relationship with God or your struggles with sin. Tell him or her about how God has encouraged you, answered your prayer, spoken to you through the Bible, and given you opportunities to share the gospel or serve other Christians. And then ask that person about his or her walk with God. Make it a habit to talk about these things together “along the road.”
- Tim Chester and Steve Timmis,
Total Church, p. 118
"We have found in our context that most learning and training takes place not through programmed teaching or training courses but in unplanned conversations—talking about life, talking about ministry, talking about problems.
12 comments:
I must say, I was really excited about this book when I read the first several excerpts on your blog (and I still think that *so much* of what the authors have to say is Biblically on-point!), but the more that I read of the book, I notice the authors make far too many broad, unbalanced statements. Maybe they should talk with the brothers over at 9 Marks? (That's not rhetorical; I'm serious about it!)
They seem to be setting the work of the Holy Spirit in Christians and the "living, dynamic" nature of a church *against* the concepts of structure and authority in a church. The fact is, I have learned *much* from one man preaching with authority in a pulpit to me and other people in a congregation (a model that Tim Chester thinks is not the "preaching" talked about in the Bible, from conversations that I have read on his blog). I fervently wish that Tim Chester could talk with Albert Mohler and Mark Dever on this subject! His thinking is not *entirely* off, but it desperately needs Biblical balance!
In addition to the "one man in a pulpit preaching," I have also learned *much* from close relationship with other believers in smaller contexts, such as small groups (home groups) and one-on-one discipleship. It's not "either/or," Tim and Steve, it's "both/and!" (not that I think they're reading my comments!).
The Bible has abundant examples of one man (or a few men) teaching to a crowd of people with authority. Two clear examples are found in Nehemiah 8 (a clear example of what we today would call "expository preaching,") and in Matthew 5:1-7:29, the "Sermon on the Mount."
To those who would say that pastors don't need to do "expository preaching" today, because Jesus is not expositing a specific text in the Sermon on the Mount, they forget that Jesus didn't always necessarily *need* to exposit a Biblical text in his preaching, because as God, He *knew* that the words He spoke would become part of the *canon of Scripture itself!* Preachers today have *no* Biblically-mandated reason to think that they can *replace* authoritative expository preaching to a congregation with "dialogues" with that congregation.
One question to ponder about this subject is, does God describe Scripture as fundamentally His word *to* us, or as a dialogue *with* us?
Again, I have learned *much* from learning with other believers in smaller, more "give-and-take" contexts. This part of the Christian life is undeniably crucial. I have also learned *much* from one man in a pulpit. Both models are very important in the life of a church. The Biblical model of *authoritative preaching,* though, is found more in the latter.
Clarification: I know that Tim and Steve are not saying, "Let's completely do away with expository preaching to a congregation." Many of the broad, unbalanced statements that they make, though, do seem to diminish and even denigrate the role of expository preaching in a church.
I have to confess, I have problems with some of these statements as well.
"Let us make a bold statement: truth cannot be taught effectively outside of close relationships. The reason is that truth is not primarily formal; it is dynamic."
Let me make a bold statement, this is false, twice over.
1) I learned a lot of truth in school (elementary to M.S. in engineering) and can't recall ever having a close relationship with any of my teachers. With regard to spiritual/Biblical training, again, the vast majority of my teachers have never even met me.
This is not to devalue the importance of relationships for teaching some things, but it reveals the postmodern tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater. "Because a person can't learn what it is like to love sacrificially by expositional preaching... away with expositional preaching!" I contend that justification by grace alone is not learned by relationship, it is learned by the communication of God's Word.
2) "The truth is not primarily formal; it's dynamic" This is the kind of muddled thinking that permeates the emergent church movement. It sets up a false dichotomy of unrelated terms (emergent "from ... to ..." lists are infamous for this). I don't know what "formal" truth is, but it sure sounds poetic. As for truth being dynamic... that's quite a postmodern assertion (I can almost hear the "hey hey ho ho meta-narratives have got to go" being chanted in the background). Is the truth about the resurrection dynamic (changing from one moment to the next)? The truth about [insert any other central truth of the Christian faith] dynamic? Or are these great truths rock solid static?
Chris nails it above, this is not an either/or situation, but a both/and. Like I argued in my response to Shane Claiborne's books, we do not have to choose between truth and authenticity. They are not mutually exclusive.
I would encourage both of you guys to get the book and read it. This is far from an "emergent" book and I'm sure that will come out in the reading of it.
These guys are not anti-preaching and they say as much in the book, but in some ways they are emphasising this relational model as being essential for discipleship.
I won't spell it all out here, but check it out for yourself.
z
Zach,
The authors may not be against "preaching" as *they* define it, but if you carefully read Tim Chester's replies to "John" (a commenter on his blog), you will see that Chester does *not* believe that "monologue-style preaching" (of the sort done at DSC) is the kind of preaching which elders are exhorted to in the New Testament.
Chester believes that elders should be moving more to "dialogue-style preaching" in Sunday services. What about the clear Biblical portraits of authoritative, non-dialogical preaching in the texts of Nehemiah 8 and Matthew 5:1-7:29?
It should be instructive to us, as believers, that when God gave us Scripture, it was His word *to* us, not his dialogue *with* us. If one is a preaching elder in a church, there is a place for conversation and dialogue with the members of one's congregation-- but that place is *not* during the Sunday morning sermon. Dialogical preaching in Sunday services is the road to theological confusion and chaos in a church.
To see Tim Chester's views on this subject, check out Tim Chester's comments to "John" here:
http://timchester.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/a-non-literate-pattern-of-disciple-making/
Oops, sorry that I repeated Tim Chester's name ad nauseam in that comment-- a guy with a B.A. in English should know better! :-)
Tim,
Again, I would encourage you to read the book because I think you are assuming some things about these guys that are not true. Remember, this book was published by Crossway. That says a lot right there. Here is a link to an interview they did with Desiring God about the book:
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1406_Ordinary_Life_with_Gospel
_Intentionality/
Chris,
Thanks for the link. In general, I don't disagree with anything you write here, but all three us of are probably making assumptions (maybe you know more about their ministry than I do) about how all this goes down in actual practice. Given a much smaller church than DSC I'm sure the forms are very different and that might be ok. I can't really make a judgment since I don't know much about it. I simply like the quote (yes it is provocative) because it emphasizes the need for real relationships which is always going to be a challenge at big churches like DSC. I don't know what "dialogue style preaching" is but I would guess that it's not a free for all. Probably something like my home group. Everyone knows who the authority is and I try and make sure we have truth being communicated, but there is room to ask questions and learn from each other as well. I don't know any pastor who says he can't learn anything from his people. How all this goes down from church to church may vary. I like how Driscoll gives people the opportunity to text message questions that he answers on the spot.
Anyway... We can talk more about this in person if you want. Thanks!
z
Zach,
Thanks for the reply, brother! I would like to talk more about this in person.
I've been reading things that Tim Chester writes on his blog and putting them together with what I am reading in the "Total Truth" book. What I am finding is a doctrinal theology that seems very Biblical, and an ecclesiology that has *many* good things in it (strong emphasis on learning and growing in one-on-one and group-based discipleship, within a church context, and a strong emphasis on relationships, also in that context) and also some very concerning things that are actually *opposed* to historic Reformed ecclesiology.
Respectfully (and I mean that, as your brother in Christ), I don't *necessarily* have to know how everything plays out in Tim's church to know that on his blog, he *severely* downplays the importance of expository preaching in Sunday morning sermons and even says that that is *not* the "preaching" that is pictured, and to which elders are exhorted, in the New Testament.
"Dialogue-style preaching" is a subject that you will find mentioned in Doug Pagitt's books. Pagitt is a more radical Emergent author. Dialogical preaching basically means a style of "sermon" that is actually more like a conversation between the pastor/elder and the congregation. Pagitt refers derisively to one-man, expository-style preaching as "speeching," rather than "preaching."
Tim Chester, being Reformed in theology, is not as radical as Doug Pagitt, but Chester is expressing ideas on his blog (including in the comments section) that are very similar to Paggit's. Again, dialogues are great for home groups and one-on-one discipleship, but they are simply not the kind of authoritative preaching *from leaders* that we see pictured and commended in the Old and New Testaments (Nehemiah 8 and Matthew 5:1-7:29, to name two examples).
Z,
I'm glad to hear that it is not an emergent book. The single amazon.com review compares it to emergent books but doesn't call it one per se. I did note that it was a Crossway publication and I agree that is a big positive sign.
Admittedly I know nothing about these guys, I could only comment on the content of the quotes themselves. Such a statement about truth could not and cannot go unchallenged. No matter what point the authors were trying to make (maybe a good one), these assertions are false and dangerously so. The postmodernism/relativism is not even subtle here.
We cannot afford to lose the battle for the meaning of the word "truth". Once we do, we find ourselves in quicksand trying to lay bricks and fight battles for the Kingdom.
I don't doubt there is a lot of great stuff in the book, after all, Crossway published it and my trusted brother Zach likes it. I'm not sure it will make my reading list though. I'm not even through my T4G stack (freebies plus purchases...) yet. So many books, so little time!
I've just started reading the book... and am finishing up "The Simple Church." Both interesting and can't wait to finish both. But I decided to roll over here and see what folks were saying about this book and I don't think I need to finish to know where this is headed.
The quote that started this thread reminds me that context is everything. And if the gospel was a straight truth of 23 points - then we'd have God's Outline. But the Word is formulated dimensional so we can see the many facets of God, God's love, God's holiness, and the (mostly) pathetic way that God's people as they respond - and YET He loves them.
The quote points to one aspect - not a doctrinal statement. The doctrine is that God speaks through His word - and that, through His people. And this occurs significantly in something much deeper than fellowship - koinonia. The aspect is that God uses men expounding truth one-on-one. That is indeed a powerful aspect of community life. To neglect that is to neglect the root desire God places on men relating. It's that whole "iron sharpens iron" and "encourage each other daily - while it is still today" sort of thing.
Personal truth is learning truth and wearing it. Sometimes that is indeed a one-on-one experience. It keeps that head-knowledge vs. living it out in truth.
Study koinonia and understand this all relates together.
Now - do the authors go "too far" in not giving credit to expository preaching? Too early to tell. But I can already tell it won't be an issue for me. So far they aren't saying anything like that - but even if they do - I take that and say "you aren't understanding the full breadth of God in this area." I can say that about almost any book I read or any message I hear.
Truth is not something we need to defend at all costs. Truth is God's to possess and ours to continue to seek from Him. Them's fighin' words eh!? Think again. When truth is revealed by God - I embrace it. It has typically been happening every Sunday morning lately. But I also have heard some things that are incredibly short-sighted. I don't throw them out.
It is very typical for people living the "home church" or "community of believers" life focus intensely on that life. But I honestly cannot say that that doesn't map to the church God designed more than what I'm experiencing now. And it is what they are experiencing.
OK, back to reading. But let me point out one thing - these guys are attempting to focus a spotlight on the aspects of church life that God has shown them. It is not contrary to what you experience. Just take what broadens your view of a holy and loving God and throw out what either you can't agree with now or don't yet understand. Get a bigger view - if you think you today comprehend even 40% of God - well, there are two answers to that. 1) You understand God's love more than 99% of the Hebrews did if you truly know and experience His grace and Lordship in your life. 2) What you currently know about the revealed God could easily be compared to the blind mouse trying describe the elephant who's foot he is precariously standing on.
Mike,
Surprise! I have a couple of comments on your post.
1) There is a big difference between the definition of truth and the body of truth. As for the latter, there is a lot of room for "iron sharpening iron" growth for all of us and it will be so until glory. On the other hand, the definition of truth is to be defended at all costs. Once compromised, words lose their meaning. Think about it.
There were statements in the original post about the nature of truth that were either false or empty flowery language (often used by postmoderns to diminish objective truth). (ref. my comments on their "bold statement" in an earlier post.)
2) RE:"Personal truth"--The only definition I can imagine for this is relative, subjective (or perspective--the new pop term) truth. That which is true for you, but not for me. Such truths certainly exist. "Coconut ice cream is delicious" is true for me, and may or not be for you. Such truths tell you something about me, not the ice cream. If by "personal truth" you mean "personal understanding" then please use that term--they are very different things. (Understanding is measured by truth and can be either right or wrong.) When it comes to the Gospel and God's design for his Church, these truths are not in the relative/subjective/perspective domain (i.e. "it ain't about me"). My understanding and what I experience are subject to my fallen comprehension and reasoning. Only God's Word determines these truths--and yes, God often uses Spirit empowered individuals to communicate those truths (and often within close relationships...).
3) "Just take what broadens your view of a holy and loving God and throw out what either you can't agree with now or don't yet understand."
You mentioned "that which [I] can't agree with" and "that which [I] don't understand yet." Are those the only two categories allowed for what I don't embrace? What about that which I do understand and can (and already have in a previous post) demonstrate to be false?
We as a church must become more authentic--check! The Bible is not just an encyclopedia of doctrine--check! But it certainly is not less than that! (I recognize that my critique now is more focused on postmodernism and emergent church than Total Church!)
Post a Comment