A "Boring" Philosophy of Ministry Pt. I
8:56 PM Sunday, August 23, 2009
There are a variety of approaches to ministry these days. There is the “emerging/emergent” approach, the “seeker-sensitive” approach, or the house church approach. Each of these is also known as “movements.” My point here is not to criticize or evaluate these approaches in any way. In my estimation, enough books have already been written doing just that—at least dealing with the emerging church and the seeker movement.
Regardless of the approach (and regardless of whether or not churches think they have an approach), every church or minister has a philosophy of ministry, that is, a way they believe ministry in the local church is to be conducted. Included in this philosophy of ministry (I suppose), would be how one believes God brings growth to a congregation, both spiritually and numerically. In a 2007 issue of Tabletalk, Ligon Duncan noted that there are three approaches or views of Gospel ministry.[1] First, some think that in order to effectively engage the culture a minister must update the message. This is what liberalism did. Secondly, there are those who think that in order to have a thriving ministry a minister must update his methods. This position is what seems to be the norm in what we would call contemporary evangelicalism. This is what is espoused by the seeker-sensitive proponents. Ministers are told that “the Gospel won’t work unless our methods are changed.”[2] Finally, there is the “ordinary means of grace” view of pastoral ministry. This view “begins with a pre-commitment to God’s message and methods, set forth in His Word.”[3] In other words, whereas the two previous views desire to change either the message or the methods, the third view says the “medium is the message,” or, to change the methods invariably affects the message. Many react strongly to such a statement and ensure us that they have not changed the message. As Michael Horton points out, however, “Methods are not neutral; they are always indicative of a particular set of beliefs.”[4] To state it differently, a person’s theology is what undergirds his or her philosophy of ministry. For example, to see this in real life one need only look at the evangelistic methods of, say, John Calvin and Charles Finney. Whereas Calvin had an unwavering allegiance to expository preaching, followed up by the public administration of the Lord’s Supper, Finney said given the “right use of means” he could get anyone to “walk the aisle,” and “invite Jesus into his or her own heart.” Hence, Finney invented the “altar call,” what Mark Dever refers to as the “Protestant version of the mass.”
I argue that the “ordinary means of grace” approach to ministry is the biblical view and is clearly outlined in the whole Bible—though I will only focus on the New Testament here. Any approach to ministry that is not centered on the Word of God and the sacraments God has ordained for his people fails to live up to what God has designed for his church.
Means of Grace
What are the “means of grace”? The means of grace are the “resources”[5] God has given his people to further our spiritual growth, strengthen us in our spiritual walk, and increase our sanctification. Since the means of grace are important for our sanctification, theologian Sinclair Ferguson refers to them as “The means of sanctification.”[6] The means of grace are the Word of God, the sacraments (or ordinances), and prayer (see question 88 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism [henceforth, WSC]).[7]
The Word of God
Having a strong love for the Word of God and giving it a central place in a believer’s life is not “bibliolatry” as I have heard some Roman Catholics refer to it. Since only the Bible is “God-breathed” (θεόπνευστος), it makes sense that we give adherence to it. The Bible is the sole infallible source of revelation. Thus, it is our final authority. While the elders and ministers of the Word in a given congregation do have a legitimate authority, theirs is only a derivative authority.
The Bible is to be hidden in our hearts (Ps. 119:11); it is to be meditated upon (v. 15), and delighted in (v. 16). It is the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17); it is “living and active” (Heb. 4:12); and it “is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). If we are to live in a way that glorifies God then we must know his Word. Question two of the WSC asks, “What rule has God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?” Answer: “The Word of God, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.” This is true because “The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man” (WSC 3).
Believers should read, meditate, pray, and hear the Word of God preached (1 Tim. 4:13; WSC 89; WCF 21.5). Due to the central role of the Word of God, Reformed Christians place a high priority on preaching in public worship. For this reason, ministers should be expected to devote themselves to expository preaching, that is, giving an explanation and application of a text from Scripture. While this was done during the time of the Protestant Reformation, the church fathers Augustine and John Chrysostom engaged in this kind of preaching as well.
I would argue that the Word of God should be read during the public gathering of the people of God on the Lord’s Day. I don’t think the Apostle Paul could have been clearer: “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13). Notice Paul talks about the public reading of Scripture. This is exactly what Nehemiah did “from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand” (Neh. 8:3). In my opinion, this is one of the biggest tragedies of our day. I am appalled by the lack of Scripture reading in many Protestant churches. To me, it is one of the greatest ironies in all of history. Since one of the “solas” of the Reformation is sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), and since we Protestants confess that Scripture is our final authority, one would think that our services would have a time of the public reading of Scripture (in addition to the reading done by the minister before the sermon, if that’s even done these days!). Here is the irony: Unbelievably (yes unbelievably!), Roman Catholics (who openly admit that the Bible is not their final authority), actually have more Bible-reading in their services than Protestants do! I have heard stories of Baptists who have decided to become Anglicans, because, as it was said, “at least they read the Bible in their church services.”
The Sacraments
As the Westminster Confession teaches, “Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits . . .” (WCF 27.1; rf. HC 66). The point to emphasize in quoting the confession is to draw attention to the words “immediately instituted by God.” The sacraments were “instituted by God,” in that Christ specifically said to do certain things. He told us to baptize and celebrate the Lord’s Supper. These sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Supper—are “visible words,” as the reformers use to call them; they make the gospel visible to us. John Frame says, “They symbolize the gospel and teach us authoritatively what the gospel is. They teach us not by words but by pictures, by actions.”[8] He notes that there are three aspects to a sacrament: they are signs, divine actions, and means of divine presence.[9]
First, they are signs in that, as already stated, they make the gospel visible to us. In baptism we see the gospel portrayed as it is depicted before our eyes and we know that, “as surely as water washes away dirt from the body, so certainly His [Jesus’] blood and Spirit wash away the impurity of my soul, that is, all my sins” (HC 69). In the Lord’s Supper we not only hear about Jesus’ body being broken for us, we see it as the minister breaks the bread before our eyes.
Secondly, the sacraments are divine actions in that, God works through them on our behalf. They show us what God has done for us. This is why we say that they are seals; they seal to us the promises of God. As Paul says about Abraham in Romans 4:11, “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness . . .” Note how Paul says circumcision was a sign and a seal. John Frame says that baptism and the Lord’s Supper seal us like the government puts a seal on a birth certificate which makes our citizenship official.[10]
Lastly, the sacraments are a means of divine presence because, as I already said, God is the one acting in and through the sacrament. It should be stated at this point, however, that the effectiveness of the sacrament is tied to our faith. Sacraments do not confer grace; they convey grace. Not every baptized person is elect. And baptism does not make one elect provisionally (contra the federal visionists). This is another way of saying that sacraments do not make things so, God makes things so. To state it crudely, sacraments are not machines of grace; they don’t inject us with grace. Grace is God’s unmerited favor. While God works through the sacrament, the sacraments do not unite us to Christ. Faith is the alone instrument through which a person is united to Christ. The sacraments strengthen our faith. The passage I cited from Romans 4 demonstrates this. The issue in Romans 4 is when Paul was justified: Before or after circumcision? In verse 10 Paul unequivocally states that it was before he was circumcised. This is why Reformed Protestants refuse to believe that a person is saved by being baptized. In our estimation, those who believe a person is saved by being baptized simply resurrect another form of the Galatian heresy.
[1] Ligon Duncan. “The Ordinary Means of Growth,” Tabletalk 31:10 (2007): 12-15.
[2] Ibid, 13.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Michael Horton. A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 45.
[5] This is the word John Frame uses. See his Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2006), 261.
[6] See his essay in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification, Donald L. Alexander, Ed. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1988), 67.
[7] I am aware that some theologians list more than these three. Given the limited scope of this essay, however, I will limit my discussion to these three.
[8] Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord, 275.
[9] Ibid, 275-278.
[10] Ibid, 275.
Regardless of the approach (and regardless of whether or not churches think they have an approach), every church or minister has a philosophy of ministry, that is, a way they believe ministry in the local church is to be conducted. Included in this philosophy of ministry (I suppose), would be how one believes God brings growth to a congregation, both spiritually and numerically. In a 2007 issue of Tabletalk, Ligon Duncan noted that there are three approaches or views of Gospel ministry.[1] First, some think that in order to effectively engage the culture a minister must update the message. This is what liberalism did. Secondly, there are those who think that in order to have a thriving ministry a minister must update his methods. This position is what seems to be the norm in what we would call contemporary evangelicalism. This is what is espoused by the seeker-sensitive proponents. Ministers are told that “the Gospel won’t work unless our methods are changed.”[2] Finally, there is the “ordinary means of grace” view of pastoral ministry. This view “begins with a pre-commitment to God’s message and methods, set forth in His Word.”[3] In other words, whereas the two previous views desire to change either the message or the methods, the third view says the “medium is the message,” or, to change the methods invariably affects the message. Many react strongly to such a statement and ensure us that they have not changed the message. As Michael Horton points out, however, “Methods are not neutral; they are always indicative of a particular set of beliefs.”[4] To state it differently, a person’s theology is what undergirds his or her philosophy of ministry. For example, to see this in real life one need only look at the evangelistic methods of, say, John Calvin and Charles Finney. Whereas Calvin had an unwavering allegiance to expository preaching, followed up by the public administration of the Lord’s Supper, Finney said given the “right use of means” he could get anyone to “walk the aisle,” and “invite Jesus into his or her own heart.” Hence, Finney invented the “altar call,” what Mark Dever refers to as the “Protestant version of the mass.”
I argue that the “ordinary means of grace” approach to ministry is the biblical view and is clearly outlined in the whole Bible—though I will only focus on the New Testament here. Any approach to ministry that is not centered on the Word of God and the sacraments God has ordained for his people fails to live up to what God has designed for his church.
Means of Grace
What are the “means of grace”? The means of grace are the “resources”[5] God has given his people to further our spiritual growth, strengthen us in our spiritual walk, and increase our sanctification. Since the means of grace are important for our sanctification, theologian Sinclair Ferguson refers to them as “The means of sanctification.”[6] The means of grace are the Word of God, the sacraments (or ordinances), and prayer (see question 88 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism [henceforth, WSC]).[7]
The Word of God
Having a strong love for the Word of God and giving it a central place in a believer’s life is not “bibliolatry” as I have heard some Roman Catholics refer to it. Since only the Bible is “God-breathed” (θεόπνευστος), it makes sense that we give adherence to it. The Bible is the sole infallible source of revelation. Thus, it is our final authority. While the elders and ministers of the Word in a given congregation do have a legitimate authority, theirs is only a derivative authority.
The Bible is to be hidden in our hearts (Ps. 119:11); it is to be meditated upon (v. 15), and delighted in (v. 16). It is the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17); it is “living and active” (Heb. 4:12); and it “is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). If we are to live in a way that glorifies God then we must know his Word. Question two of the WSC asks, “What rule has God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?” Answer: “The Word of God, which is contained in the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.” This is true because “The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man” (WSC 3).
Believers should read, meditate, pray, and hear the Word of God preached (1 Tim. 4:13; WSC 89; WCF 21.5). Due to the central role of the Word of God, Reformed Christians place a high priority on preaching in public worship. For this reason, ministers should be expected to devote themselves to expository preaching, that is, giving an explanation and application of a text from Scripture. While this was done during the time of the Protestant Reformation, the church fathers Augustine and John Chrysostom engaged in this kind of preaching as well.
I would argue that the Word of God should be read during the public gathering of the people of God on the Lord’s Day. I don’t think the Apostle Paul could have been clearer: “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13). Notice Paul talks about the public reading of Scripture. This is exactly what Nehemiah did “from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand” (Neh. 8:3). In my opinion, this is one of the biggest tragedies of our day. I am appalled by the lack of Scripture reading in many Protestant churches. To me, it is one of the greatest ironies in all of history. Since one of the “solas” of the Reformation is sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), and since we Protestants confess that Scripture is our final authority, one would think that our services would have a time of the public reading of Scripture (in addition to the reading done by the minister before the sermon, if that’s even done these days!). Here is the irony: Unbelievably (yes unbelievably!), Roman Catholics (who openly admit that the Bible is not their final authority), actually have more Bible-reading in their services than Protestants do! I have heard stories of Baptists who have decided to become Anglicans, because, as it was said, “at least they read the Bible in their church services.”
The Sacraments
As the Westminster Confession teaches, “Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits . . .” (WCF 27.1; rf. HC 66). The point to emphasize in quoting the confession is to draw attention to the words “immediately instituted by God.” The sacraments were “instituted by God,” in that Christ specifically said to do certain things. He told us to baptize and celebrate the Lord’s Supper. These sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s Supper—are “visible words,” as the reformers use to call them; they make the gospel visible to us. John Frame says, “They symbolize the gospel and teach us authoritatively what the gospel is. They teach us not by words but by pictures, by actions.”[8] He notes that there are three aspects to a sacrament: they are signs, divine actions, and means of divine presence.[9]
First, they are signs in that, as already stated, they make the gospel visible to us. In baptism we see the gospel portrayed as it is depicted before our eyes and we know that, “as surely as water washes away dirt from the body, so certainly His [Jesus’] blood and Spirit wash away the impurity of my soul, that is, all my sins” (HC 69). In the Lord’s Supper we not only hear about Jesus’ body being broken for us, we see it as the minister breaks the bread before our eyes.
Secondly, the sacraments are divine actions in that, God works through them on our behalf. They show us what God has done for us. This is why we say that they are seals; they seal to us the promises of God. As Paul says about Abraham in Romans 4:11, “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness . . .” Note how Paul says circumcision was a sign and a seal. John Frame says that baptism and the Lord’s Supper seal us like the government puts a seal on a birth certificate which makes our citizenship official.[10]
Lastly, the sacraments are a means of divine presence because, as I already said, God is the one acting in and through the sacrament. It should be stated at this point, however, that the effectiveness of the sacrament is tied to our faith. Sacraments do not confer grace; they convey grace. Not every baptized person is elect. And baptism does not make one elect provisionally (contra the federal visionists). This is another way of saying that sacraments do not make things so, God makes things so. To state it crudely, sacraments are not machines of grace; they don’t inject us with grace. Grace is God’s unmerited favor. While God works through the sacrament, the sacraments do not unite us to Christ. Faith is the alone instrument through which a person is united to Christ. The sacraments strengthen our faith. The passage I cited from Romans 4 demonstrates this. The issue in Romans 4 is when Paul was justified: Before or after circumcision? In verse 10 Paul unequivocally states that it was before he was circumcised. This is why Reformed Protestants refuse to believe that a person is saved by being baptized. In our estimation, those who believe a person is saved by being baptized simply resurrect another form of the Galatian heresy.
[1] Ligon Duncan. “The Ordinary Means of Growth,” Tabletalk 31:10 (2007): 12-15.
[2] Ibid, 13.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Michael Horton. A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 45.
[5] This is the word John Frame uses. See his Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2006), 261.
[6] See his essay in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification, Donald L. Alexander, Ed. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1988), 67.
[7] I am aware that some theologians list more than these three. Given the limited scope of this essay, however, I will limit my discussion to these three.
[8] Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord, 275.
[9] Ibid, 275-278.
[10] Ibid, 275.
Posts
