From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Maybe some of you pastors have wrestled with this issue. One thing I’ve wondered about for a long time now is how to balance the church’s call to be missional (to exist for the sake of the world as a servant-priesthood, not just in this or that that aspect of her life, but in *all* that she does) vs. upholding what I think is a biblical (and traditonal) form of liturgical worship in which the church’s *own* culture (her Spirit-wrought heritage) is most determinative and formative. I don’t buy John Farme’s “intelligbility” argument from 1 Cor. 14, nor do I want to confuse “worship” with “evangelism” as you have in the Willow Creek/seeker-friendly model. But if our worship is for the life of the world, it seems a case can be made for “missional” worship.
In Tim Keller’s fine paper on “The Missional Church”, he writes,
“The missional church avoids ‘tribal’ language, stylized prayer language, unnecessary evangelical pious ‘jargon’, and archaic language that seeks to set a ‘spiritual tone.’”
When I hear him take a shot at “stylized langauge,” I’m sure he has pop evangelicalism in view, but I also cannot help but read that as slam against using Cranmer’s prayers or other traditional liturgical resources. After all, those prayer and confession forms almost always use a high, exalted form of speech that goes beyond our ordinary, day-to-day speech with one another. They use a specialized vocabulary and so forth. They do present communicative problems for unbelievers who may be present. I also think in terms of Bible translations: Keller is an NIV guy because it’s more “missional” in its language, but that’s about the worst translation you could choose if you’re after aesthetics and textual fidelity in your liturgical readings.
The question then, would be, how do we give worship a missional dimension without, in the words of Jim Jordan, “pandering to the Satan-inspired tastes of the unbelieving visitor,” or without adopting “cheap commericalized styles of twentieth-century California culture.” (I’m not saying Keller does what Jordan describes here; he doesn’t best I can tell, though Jordan’s point still stnads.) How does the church remain true to her heritage in a proper way, without becoming unnecessarily archaic?
Or to come at this from another angle, is there some way to reconcile Keller’s point that the church should speak the language of the people, with Peter Leithart’s argument that the church is her own culture with her own language? It seems a stretch to say that worship can be the church’s “language class” while simultaneously being “missional,” at least in Keller’s sense of the term. Keller wants us to contextualize our language, while Leithart says, “contextualization be damned.” While Leithart acknowledges that “translation” must take place, he also insists that the church is a “distinct language group,” over against the wider culture. So: should we “talk funny”? Or not?
I have a hunch that someone like Keller would say that prayer books, loaded with exalted speech and specialized “church language” were fine in Christendom situations, but not in our current “missional” situation in which the church is largely marginalized and the culture around us secularized (and therefore biblically illiterate). If we continue using historic forms, we sound more and more “tribal” and risk irrelevancy. Is that a valid argument? Is liturgy — or liturgical style — transcendent? Or does it partake of the fluidity of the church/culture relationship, such that different approaches to worship will be needed in different social and cultural situations? Should we be doing “high” liturgy in the West in 2005? How much should liturgical forms reflect the surrounding culture over against the church’s historic culture?
Keller, following Newbigin and others, are right in that the church must adapt to the new situation we’re in now that Christendom is pretty much over in the West. We can’t just “do church” as we have for the past 1500 years. But I’m not convinced Keller is connecting that necessary shift in orientation and ministry philosophy with a fully biblical theology of worship.
Keller writes,
“The missional church avoids ever talking as if non-believing people are not present. If you speak and discourse as if your whole neighborhood is present (not just scattered Christians), eventually more and more of your neighborhood will find their way in or be invited.”
Compare this to Jordan’s insistence that worship is “family time.”
“[W]orship is private. Unbeleivers have no business being there at all . . . Worship is a closed meeting of the family, and Christ enters to be with us when the doors of the family are shut . . . Think about it: If the heathen are invited to come into our worship assemblies, then when do we *ever* get together with God as a family? Is there to be absolutely no family time at all, *ever*? Are we *never* allowed to get together with God as a family? Do we have to have heathen with us *all the time*?”
It’s obvious how Keller would answer Jordan’s questions. In fact, here Jordan and Keller are arguing for virtually the exact opposite point. Again, this is very important for planning and leading worship services, and preaching. If worship is family time, I ignore the unbeliever. Worship is still “missional” insofar as the unbeliever may still sit in the room with us and look over our shoulder. But the main way he is pricked in his conscience is through *exclusion.* On this model, I can address the covenant people covenantally, without fear of confusion. I can pronounce a strong and direct absolution. I can preach a pretty “deep” sermon that deals with issues God’s people are facing (which issues are quite different than those a typical non-believer faces, most of the time). And so forth.
It seems to me that on Keller’s model the sheep could end up suffering for the sake of the non-sheep. The sheep never get a direct word of comfort from God becasue that confuses the issue (You can’t say to the gathered body, “your sins are forgiven” because you know you’re speaking to non-Christians who aren’t “there yet.”). The sermon will have to be pretty basic, and the music pretty immature, in order for the worldlings to not feel left out. And so serious Bible study and maturity will have to be attained in some other way — probably through private study since even the church’s “small group Bible studies” will have to be “missional” and therefore more elementary.
Do any of you pastors wrestle with these issues? How do you reach the non-churched? (Granted, non-churched people are sometimes hard to find in Birmingham, AL, but you get my drift). Do you want the non-churched there on Sunday morning? Or would you rather meet with them on some other “turf”? What would you tell a church member who came to you and said, “I have an unbelieving friend at work, and I’ve been talking about the gospel with him. He seems interested, but I’m afraid that if I invite him to *our* church, he’ll be scared off because he’ll have no clue what’s going on when we’re doing our liturgy.” Would you tell the guy to go ahead and invite his friend to church anyway? Or would you take some other strategy? (Any thoughts Wes Baker, since you do this all day every day? Is Matthew Brown still on this list? or Matt Boulter? — if so I’d be interested in their responses.)
For the record I was convinced of Jordan’s arguments for worship as “family time” over 10 years ago. And for almost as long, I’ve been persuaded by Willimon and guys of that sort that the church is her own “culture” — and so I’ve never really worried too much about using “high” liturgical language. I think a church that does the Lord’s Supper weekly is automatically going to move in this direction since the unbelievers present are so obviously excluded from the high point of the service. I’ve justified my practice in terms of a missonal ecclesiology by pointing out that in gathered worship, whether unbelievers are present or not, we are acting as God’s preisthood on the world’s behalf. We ascend into the heavenlies, and unbeleivers cannot make that “trip” with us, but we intercede for them there before the throne of grace. We are believing and enacting the gospel for the sake of the nations, and calling on God to show mercy to his whole creation. If unbelievers are present, I’ve reasoned that they could be drawn into the kingdom by “witnessing” the gospel in action among God’s people, just as in 1 Cor. 14 the unbeliever seems to be converted by prophecy which is specifically directed to believers! (Tongues, which are for unbelievers in that passage certainly do not aim at intelligibility!) I’m not wavering on any of that, but I do want to contunually test my approach. Plus there’s always that nagging question: Why — at least in our circles — are most of the “liturgical” churches I know small (often the “higher” they go, the smaller they get) while the more “missional” churches seem to be booming? This article provokes some questons too:
pcanews.com/monthly_umpired_debate.html
Thoughts?
RL
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:59:34 -0000
From: “Alastair Roberts”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Rich,
Where is the Jordan quote from?
Alastair Roberts
Stoke-on-Trent, England
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:17:35 -0000
From: “Alastair Roberts”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Forget my earlier e-mail, I’ve just found the quote (Theses on Worship, p.13f.).
Alastair Roberts
Stoke-on-Trent, England
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 08:50:47 -0600
From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:09 AM, Rich Lusk wrote:
Maybe some of you pastors have wrestled with this issue.
Well asked!
I have worshipped at Keller’s church and I think I remember their using about 3/4 older hymns and 1/4 newer hymns, none of the praise music variety. They use an organ during worship, and they have some responsive stuff — I will try to find the bulletin I saved from their worship service, but I’m pretty sure it had a confession of sins.
I went on Palm or Easter Sunday, though, so I don’t know if I heard the normal service.
The sermon had a bit of evangelistic overtones to it, but it was more focused on reminding the believers present who they are in Christ, that sort of thing.
— Jonathan
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:22:05 -0000
From: “Rich Bledsoe”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Here is something I wrote for the pastors in Boulder that I think is relevant to the issue of “evangelism vs.liturgy.” et. It should be self explanatory.
------------------
“It is an experience of our days that the spoken name of Jesus alone exercises an unforeseen power; and the effort which it costs to speak this name is perhaps connected with some faint apprehension of the power which is inherent within it. Wherever the name of Jesus Christ is spoken it is a protection and a claim. This is the case with all those who in their struggle for justice, truth, humanity and freedom have learned once again to speak the name of Jesus Christ even though it is with hesitation and with genuine fear. The name gives protection to them and to the high values for which they stand; and it is at the same time the claim to these men and to these values.” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics p. 57)
I am sure most of you have by now seen the stories concerning Crist Mortuary and Sacred Heart of Mary Catholic Church in the local newspapers, or on the television and radio. For several years, Crist Mortuary has been the recipient of the bodily remains of aborted children from the local abortion clinic owned by the infamous Dr. Warren Hern. Crist has offered its services for these unborn children and has, gratis, given cremation to them. But beyond this, every several months, the cremens have been given to Sacred Heart of Mary Catholic Church, and Father Dorino has done a short service of Christian burial in their own churchyard. In the churchyard there is there a memorial wall to the unborn. This has been a very courageous act on the part of Crist Mortuary and of Sacred Heart.
Recently, Dr. Hern learned of these Christian burials, and predictably this has created something of a public firestorm with him accusing the Catholic Church of “cynical exploitation . . . for political purposes,” among other things. It seems probable that Hern’s relationship with Crist will end, and that henceforth the remains will be disposed of in a way that seems suitable to Dr. Hern.
Crist has done what Bonhoeffer spoke of, and in his experience created a space of lawfulness in the lawlessness of Nazi Germany. Crist has dared to whisper the Name of Jesus Christ over the remains of these children by allowing Father Dorino to grant Christian interment to them. This has restored the status of persons to these destroyed children. Nothing could be more important.
Yesterday, I stopped by Crist Mortuary and expressed my appreciation for their very courageous action. I cannot tell you how much my few minutes were appreciated.
Let me give a short meditation on the meaning of these actions over the last few days.
Have you ever stopped to think why the very short book of Philemon is in the New Testament? It is a very short personal letter from the Apostle Paul to a friend of his, a prosperous Roman slave owner who is of course, named Philemon. An escaped slave who is the property of Philemon by the name of Onesimus, somehow came into the orbit of the then imprisoned Apostle Paul, and through Paul’s ministrations become a committed Christian. Paul is now sending Onesimus back to his master, presumably with this letter in hand. The letter briefly, is a plea for Philemon to receive Onesimus kindly, and even as a brother.
What is significant is that Onesimus and Philemon are understood, in some sense, to now share a complete equality. Notice, I said “in some sense.” Onesimus still will have the legal status of a slave and will be continue to be the personal property of his master. But, in the church of Jesus Christ, they are one. They are baptized into the same Name, they partake together of the Body and Blood of their Lord week by week. They together are bondservants of the same Master, and are together freed men in the liberty of Christ. This is dynamite in the context of the Roman Empire, where increasingly as it moved into decadence, there were two solutions to everything: more slavery, and more death.
This short epistle should be seen (and I owe this insight to the New Testament scholar, N. T. Wright ) in the light of, and as a commentary on, Ephesians 3:8–12. Verse 10 says, “. . . (God has revealed to me the Gospel) . . . to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. . .” The church is “on the boards”, on a stage, so to speak, before the principalities and powers (those powers that rule the world before, and outside of Christ) as a demonstration to them of what has now come to be true in the cosmos as a result of the resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. The truth that Christ is King is not yet manifested or worked out in the world, even though it is true. But the church is the theater where this truth is played out before the principalities and powers for them to see. It is, week by week, an announcement to them of what will become world wide truth and manifestation. So, when the principalities and powers observe Philemon and Onesimus as complete equals in the church, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ together, it is an announcement to them of their doom. The truth is always played out in the church before it is manifested in the world.
And indeed, as Rome, collapsed slavery disappeared in the larger world. There was no slavery in the Medieval world for more than a thousand years. It was only with the birth of the African slave trade, and as the principles of the Enlightenment took hold, that slavery and racism emerged in the modern world (notice the indifference of Shakespeare to the issue of color — racism is largely a modern phenomena) Then, slavery had to be reconquered all over again, and this has never happened apart from the church.
Now, this same principle is at work. When Father Dorino, following 9 o’clock Mass, gives Christian burial to the cremens of aborted children, this is being done in the face of the principalities and the powers. This too is dynamite in the context of the modern world. It is an announcement to those principalities and powers that in the name of Jesus Christ their reign is over, and unborn children are now to be received as full citizens with complete equality in the Kingdom of God, under the protection and sponsorship of the Son of God Himself. This is not a political act, it is rather a supra-political act. It is an act of power speaking to the very foundations of the cosmos.
As Christians, we need to understand that what we do in the church week by week, is spiritual warfare. Nothing is more potent, nothing is more relevant. This is very much the meaning of the book of Revelation (the book of spiritual warfare) being entirely structured as worship.
Praise God for what is happening tomorrow morning. An Announcement is being made, and the principalities are trembling.
Richard Bledsoe
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:27:31 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Rich:
The problem, as you note about halfway through, is that many of our churches *only* do Lord’s Day worship, which is not really supposed to be “missional.” We forget that 1 Cor. 9:19–23 (“all things to all people, to win some”) is *not* a worship context. It has to do with the Church scattered (to work and evangelize), rather than the Church gathered (for worship, fellowship).
The problem I see with some of Keller’s language is that it is, in typical Evangelical fashion, only concerned with the current generation. It is emphasizing “space” (breadth/the nations/individuals) rather than “time” (depth/the generations/the families of the earth). We need both. One wonders what Keller’s millennial views are, and how that might affect what he is talking about (i.e., postmillennialists are more patient for the leaven to leaven the dough of the world).
We need to work on getting out into the marketplace, the cultural learning centers (Areopagus), and the synagogues (liberal Protestant churches?). That’s why I developed my Tolkien lecture (though it is by no stretch “preaching Christ” a la Rom. 10:14–17), and why I am working on a Harry Potter lecture for the new book release in June (please pray). We tried doing Christianity Explained this past fall (I know, I know: “Against Christianity”), but with dozens of invites, only one couple was willing to go through a simple six-week walk through the gospel of Mark. We are thinking about doing an “Ask the Pastor” night on Weds. night, where I might have a brief devotional planned if there are no questions, but mostly let anyone bring their friends to ask any questions they want (without becoming a debate/argument).
BDN
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:39:44 -0000
From: “Richard Hiers”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
This past fall at Covenant’s Wilson Preaching lectures, Tim Keller had a lecture entitled “Preaching to Believers and Unbelievers”. Here’s the link:
covenantseminary.edu/resource/Keller_JRW_FA04Lectures.mp3
Richard
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:10:19 -0600
From: burke
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Rich,
All good thoughts. See below.
It seems to me that on Keller’s model the sheep could end up suffering for the sake of the non-sheep. The sheep never get a direct word of comfort from God becasue that confuses the issue (You can’t say to the gathered body, “your sins are forgiven” because you know you’re speaking to non-Christians who aren’t “there yet.”). The sermon will have to be pretty basic, and the music pretty immature, in order for the worldlings to not feel left out. And so serious Bible study and maturity will have to be attained in some other way — probably through private study since even the church’s “small group Bible studies” will have to be “missional” and therefore more elementary.
When I was in seminary in WTSCA, I attended New Life Presbyterian church, where Dick Kaufman preached and John Frame played the piano, and our experience was what you detail above, with a twist. It was a seeker sensitive church, and Kaufman’s sermons were for the visitors. Consequently, believers felt under nourished. That’s where Frame came in. he lead the SS curriculum, and taught some heavier-duty SS classes. There were of varying levels, and always a sermon response class lead by Dick that was very “lite”. Routinely, though, people would leave after getting saved and go to churches where they felt they were getting better, more biblical teaching. But Dick was ok with that; he was an evangelist of sorts.
Do any of you pastors wrestle with these issues?
Yes.
How do you reach the non-churched? (Granted, non-churched people are sometimes hard to find in Birmingham, AL, but you get my drift).
WE try a variety of neighborhood outreaches: annual block party with free food and beer; we drop notices on the neighbors 3x a year, inviting them to our annual block party, conference, and Christmas eve service; we also “carol” the neighborhood, giving listeners a loaf of banana bread and a flyer inviting them to the Christmas eve service; we pray for the neighborhood very regularly.
Do you want the non-churched there on Sunday morning?
Yes; it is through preaching that people are saved. But the service is not for the visitor, it is for the Christian who attends regularly.
Or would you rather meet with them on some other “turf”?
I take them to lunch often; I get $150/ month to take people to lunch.
What would you tell a church member who came to you and said, “I have an unbelieving friend at work, and I’ve been talking about the gospel with him. He seems interested, but I’m afraid that if I invite him to *our* church, he’ll be scared off because he’ll have no clue what’s going on when we’re doing our liturgy.”
I tell them to witness to him, and invite him to church, but school him first on what he’ll see and hear. But of most importance is their personal relationship with the unbeliever, because knowing Christ is covenantal, after all, and the church grows in her relationships, etc. not necessarily by the impartation of “knowledge” through tracts, etc. So have the guy over for beer and pizza, and get to know him relationally by going fishing, etc. with him. Then when he comes, he’s much more ready to give a listen.
Plus there’s always that nagging question: Why — at least in our circles — are most of the “liturgical” churches I know small (often the “higher” they go, the smaller they get) while the more “missional” churches seem to be booming?
A great question; I think we are shy (and probably lazy and self-righteous) and just feel more comfortable with Scottish revivals than real revivals. We are starting to have some neighborhood people attend, and its a real challenge and even exhausting to the body, because these people have real needs and are totally out to lunch in just about every area of life. Some of them are really crazy as well as drunkards, and fed so full of baloney from the cultural psychos, and they are so victimized by our culture they are truly lazy of mind and spirit, and you have to hold their hand in everything. And when you have your own family to train and love, it is truly exhausting. But we do see changes slowly, and that is rewarding. A rose for every 5 or 6 weeds is very encouraging.
Hope that helps.
Burke
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:03:15 -0500
From: “John Heaton”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Rich,
How about a modern language prayer book? Frankly, for it’s shortcomings, the ECUSA has demonstrated that the modern language BCP does work. I think it could be more sound theologically, but I don’t get the fuss over revising Cranmer for out culture. Rite I works really well IMOP.
John Heaton, Headmaster
New Covenant Schools
122 Fleetwood Drive
Lynchburg, VA 24501
434.847.8313
www.newcovenantschools.org
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:12:12 -0600
From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:09 AM, Rich Lusk wrote:
Maybe some of you pastors have wrestled with this issue.
Yes, I have. But I’m not sure how well I’ve answered the questions you ask, Rich.
I do think the language of the liturgy ought to be accessible to everyone. And that does mean avoiding archaic, flowery church language. But how this works out in practice is not as easy as laying down a simplistic formula or two.
The problem is that there is a church culture that the H.S. has created over the centuries that includes a way of speaking and thinking. This will necessarily be at odds at some level with the direction of our increasingly post-Christian culture in the USA. And this will mean that our language will have to be different in order to be faithful and effective in transforming our world.
The same must be said about the music of the church.
Nevertheless, I still believe that the basic shape of the service and the form of the activities that the pastor and saints engage in on the Lord’s Day will be somewhat alien to many people. They must be trained to worship properly.
What I see too often (not necessarily with Keller, but with many of his followers) is that the missiological mandate ends up trumping the deposit of the wisdom of the Spirit granted to the church for 2 centuries. And the biblical pattern for covenant renewal worship is set aside in order to “minister to modern people.”
JJM
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:15:14 -0600
From: burke
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
How about a modern language prayer book? Frankly, for it’s shortcomings, the ECUSA has demonstrated that the modern language BCP does work. I think it could be more sound theologically, but I don’t get the fuss over revising Cranmer for out culture. Rite I works really well IMOP.
How dare you speak against the Coverdale translation, which is for all times and all seasons!
You liberal leaning, EPC attending, REC clothed, closet modernist!
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:05:39 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Rich,
Good questions. I touched off a bit of controversy this past Sunday a.m. when I preached on worship as “family time” (remember my queries last week, and settling on Ex 10.1–11).
A few very brief thoughts:
(1) On the one hand, Paul speaks of unbelievers coming in to the assembly and understanding and being convicted of sin (1 Cor 14). So there is a real element of truth to the thought that what we do ought to be “intelligible.”
(2) But “intelligible” is *not* the same as *familiar,* and this is where a whole bunch of the church growth stuff goes right off the track. (And again, I’m not accusing Keller of this; I’m completely unfamiliar with him.) And neither does “intelligible” mean that those present on Sunday morning are treated as a mass of believers and unbelievers.
(3) Let’s remember that 1st century meetings of the church were characterized as “coming together to break bread” (Acts 20.7). While other things happened along with the sacrament itself, the whole service was “to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor 11). (Hence the early Church had the right instinct in calling the worship service as a whole “the Eucharist,” if I have my history right.) Now note: only the baptized got to partake. Meaning that the characterization of the worship service was as something for the Church. It is what the Church does.
(4) Mark’s point about the Church’s worship being a “public event” is true, and I don’t want to dispute that. The Church’s worship calls all men to worship the one true God. But it also presupposes that God’s enemies — which is what man-in-Adam is — *cannot* worship. In my sermon, I drew a contrast between Rom 8.7–8 and 12.1: the natural man cannot please God, whereas the “spiritual act of worship” is to present our bodies as a *well-pleasing* sacrifice to God. Thus the Church’s worship as public event is such as a public witness to the service of the one true God, but that does not mean that it is *directed toward* the unbeliever.
There’s obviously more to say, but I gotta run.
tim
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:40:13 -0500
From: prbuckley@aol.com
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs.being liturgical
Perhaps most of you have listened to this, but here’s an interview with N.T. Wright (bottom half of page) about worship that at least touches on the questions being discussed here. Hear especially “Ancient Words and Prayers.”
tinyurl.com/4x6fk
Frater Urs
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:33:51 -0000
From: “Cory Kloth”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
I go to Keller’s church every year (we have a annual mission trip to NYC). He has different worship services, a morning (traditional) and an afternoon (jazz), with these at different locations throughout the city. I believe their liturgy is the same with the music obviously being different. They have a corporate confession of sin, a unison creedal reading, and more traditional hymns. Going to New York as often as I do (at least twice a year), a Willow Creek type church probably wouldn’t work in Manhattan. The people who live in that city are some of the most artistic, talented, creative, intelligent people this country and the world has to offer. They see right through the soft, basic, non-challenging material that much of modern evangelicalism has to offer.
I think this issue poses a false dicotomy. I would raise the question: “Why can’t a liturgical service be missional?” I think defining (and redefining) terminology concerning our worship is important. I’ll start with the sermon. What is the purpose of the sermon, or more importantly, why do people listen to the sermon? Building on Barach’s talk at BH two years ago along with reading I have done (especially Piper’s “The Supremacy Of God In Preaching”) I believe that the main purpose of the sermon (as I read the NT) is to herald the reign of Christ. Sermons are not theological lectures or simple “3 step help programs.” It is about proclaiming Christ and his role as King and ruler over the earth. I think a good sermon is one that calls all hearers (“believers” and “non-believers” if we want to use such categories) to servanthood of the living, loving, true King Jesus at the same time throwing light onto how the Scriptures are fulfilled in Him. When I preach my goal is to have my congregation leave feeling both secure and threatened, loved and intimidated, comforted and challenged, when they hear the proclamation of the good news. This is my goal that I pray for each and every time that I preach. Even “believers” need to hear the continued call for repentance, the continued call for surrender, the continued demand to be a living sacrifice.
I see “liturgical” (I have been fighting the “high church” terminology because it is very unhelpful) as missional because it shows everyone how a Christian should behave and act in front the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I don’t think that Old Testament Christians sat around saying “How should we change our Temple worship in order to attract the Pagans?” They did what was given to them knowing that their example was a public display of how God wanted all of creation to worship. I know that there are huge arguments about what God commands, but I think that faithfulness to the Word should be the overarching principle, rather than how to reach people, because people will be reached when that faithfulness is lived and practiced.
I don’t think that the size of congregations should play an influence into the type of church we should want. This is very misleading. People will get leaders to preach what they want to hear (2 Tim 4:3–4) and judging by the sermons I watch on television every week, this is more true than ever before. Plus, haven’t there been times in history where the larger congregations were the ones that were leading people astray? I don’t bring this example up because I think that “contemporary (again, hate labels)” are leading people astray, but to show that numbers should not be the issue when it comes to determining style.
The main thing that I do for evangelism is pray. I believe that if we put the same amount of time into praying as we did planning outreachs or the next big evangelistic wing-ding, our cups would overflow.
One thing that has caught my attention recently (because of all kinds of circumstances in my personal life) is that I think the pastorate as a whole is concerned about “numbers” because of our financial responsibilities. The Lord over the past year has basically stripped my family down to the bare minimium in order to survive, yet, I have never felt more “freer” to preach the Word. Not that I am looking to get thrown out of my church or anything, but if I did, I could basically pay my bills working at a gas station. So many pastors have big mortages, school loans, SUV payments, etc. . . , which consciously or subconsciously can impact what we say, how we run Christ’s church, etc. . . I am not advocating a monastic lifestyle, I just don’t think we take Matthew 6:19–24 and Matthew 8:18–22 seriously enough.
I pray that some of this is might be benefical.
ck
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:11:02 -0600
From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
That’s great Cory! Very much along the lines of my own thinking. I think you’re dead on re: the financial issues. And it’s not just pastors feeling driven to keep up their own salaries, but also to keep the church budget in the black (often carrying the weight of building programs, large staffs and so forth).
Thanks to others who offered thoughts as well. Very helpful.
At Trinity, I’m working towards our church having a “double focus” vision: maturity and mission. And these are not 2 different things. The way to become mature is in fulfilling our mission. And if the way to be missional is live as God’s matured new humanity in Christ. Discipleship and evangelism, liturgy and out reach, serve one another. Of course, we have a long ways to go in both areas.
Blessings,
RL
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 22:11:50 -0800
From: Daniel Dillard
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Good observations, Cory. Very helpful. Thanks!
Also, I think you’re right that debt is a big obstacle to reformation. Gary North always made a big point of avoiding debt, and I think he is right.
Love in Christ,
Dan Dillard
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:04:51 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Rich:
One more thought on this: if we take WCF 25.3 has a basic mission statement for the visible Church, we see that she is to be gathering and perfecting the saints, primarily through the ministry, oracles [Word], and ordinances [worship, sacraments, etc.] of God. An OPC pastor suggested to me that all Presbyterian churches should have at least two pastors: one focused on gathering, the other on perfecting/building. The latter would be focused on the Lord’s Day service and visitation, while the former would be “outside the walls”/out in the street, working on bringing the unchurched in. Obviously, this need not be either/or, but would be a clear division of labor. But I wonder if we expect too much from pastors (and laity) by trying to also make them evangelists (or small-a apostles; cf., 2 Cor. 8:23; Rom. 10:14–15).
In other words, just as we have “regional home missionaries” at the presbytery/regional level, so we should have home missionaries at the local level, but not planting new churches (though that could be their job for a time, I suppose), but working on bringing others into existing churches. This obviously takes a financial investment that many Reformed churches, but (assuming the congregation had confidence in the man’s gifts) would seem to demonstrate trust in the ordinary means of grace (e.g., the preaching of the word). A division of labor may be the solution to your dilemma.
I have not read the biography, but the man cited Asahel Nettleton as being involved with such a model (with Edwards?).
BDN
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:59:57 -0500
From: Matthew Brown
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Rich,
I know I missed the boat on this discussion, but I thought I’d toss in my two cents.
Let me first say that there is a great deal of diversity within the “Redeemer Network” regarding worship services and the Redeemer Church Planting Center (hereafter RCPC) does not explicitly dictate any particular liturgy. Second, as Cory noted, Redeemer’s worship is very liturgical compared to most PCA churches. Though they do not have weekly communion, Tim has stated that he wished they had started with weekly communion, but that its too late to turn the ship around (For more on Tim’s position see his contribution to “Worship by the Book” edited by D.A. Carson). Third, I agree with Rich that Tim’s liturgical leanings are due primarily to mission rather than a biblical theology of worship (though I’m sure he would disagree) but this proves Cory’s point that liturgy and mission are not mutually exclusive.
That a liturgical service can be missional or evangelistic is evidenced by many of the churches Redeemer has planted (and Redeemer itself). At least five churches planted by RCPC here in NY are more self-consciously liturgical than is Redeemer. For instance, I wear a robe and stole every week, use wine in a common chalice for weekly communion, and wear a clerical collar on Sundays (and very often in the neighborhood). These churches have experienced a good deal of growth, including the conversion of many unbelievers. We have been worshiping less than a year and our church has grown significantly from a core group of 30 to almost 150 in worship every week. This growth includes conversions (I will do my sixth adult baptism next month).
The point is not that we should have liturgical services for pragmatic reasons (e.g. the Emerging Church Movement), but that a biblical theology of worship leads to a liturgy in which Christ is glorified and people are drawn to him.
This “missional” aspect of worship should not be set against other aspects of the service. For example, many unchurched people have said they were attracted to our church when they heard us praying for the needs of the neighborhood, city and world. Even the family meal can be evangelistic insofar as it functions as an “altar call” every week. Whenever I fence the table, I say something like: “This is a meal for baptized members of this or any church that proclaims the Gospel. If this does not describe you, then please refrain from taking communion and take this time to ask God to reveal himself to you. We are glad you are with us and we hope that you will someday be able to join us.”
This leads to the question about unique “family time.” On the one hand, I couldn’t agree more with the fact that our worship is to be distinctively and unapologetically Christian because it is a family meal. Therefore, we shouldn’t expect unbelievers to understand (or participate in) every aspect of the service. Frankly, most visitors probably don’t expect to understand everything anyway (They wouldn’t expect someone attending an opera for the first time to understand everything).
On the other hand, when we speak of the service as unique family time, we must not use this as an excuse for laziness. When we have guests to our home for a dinner party, we try to be as hospitable and accommodating as possible. The same should be true of our services. It does no harm to give an explanation for why we worship, do confession, communion, baptism, etc. I don’t think its helpful to say “unbelievers have no business being there at allŠ” because we will then act that out. We may excuse lazy sermons that sound like commentaries because we’re preaching to Christians, after all, and don’t need to “entertain” anyone. Furthermore, when preaching I’m not prepared to say that the issues faced by unbelievers and believers are totally different. As Cory mentioned, both need to hear the call to repentance, surrender, etc, and preaching “apologetically” is good for believers (and the maturity level of Christians should not be overestimated).
Practically, when I’m preparing a sermon I think about The Sermon on the Mount where Jesus was speaking to his disciples, but doing so in the midst of a crowd (Mt. 5:1; 7:28). I speak primarily to the covenant community, but make specific applications to those who are visiting. For example, after speaking about the responsibility Christians have to live out the forgiveness of Christ, I will challenge those who are visiting to “watch the people in our church and examine the lives of those you came to the service with. Are they practicing this type of forgiveness? How do they respond when someone mistreats them? Do you notice a difference? Ask them about it.” I believe this is a proper way to contextualize our message without abandoning the Gospel or the unique community of the church.
Lastly, Rich, I think your question about why our liturgical churches tend to be smaller than other “seeker-friendly” churches is one that needs to be pondered at greater length. My guess is that it has more to do with the culture of the church (maintenance minded, ingrown, etc) than its liturgy but I’m sure there is a connection. I could probably go on about that, but I’ve gone on long enough.
Matt
Matthew C. Brown
Organizing Pastor
524 3rd St.
Brooklyn, NY 11215
(718) 369-7972
http://www.parkslopechurch.com
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:06:31 -0600
From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
Thanks Matthew. Thay’s all very helpful and I’m glad to hear that your church is doing so well!
My original post was not intended to imply that Keller’s church was not liturgical (I’ve never been to worship there at RPC-NY), or that we really do have to choose between being “missional” and “liturgical.” I just thought the juxtaposition of the Keller quotes with Jordan’s/Leithart’s was interesting and worthy of discussion — especially since some sort of synthesis seems likely. It’s been at the back of my mind as a point for discussion for years.
I agree with you completely about congregational hospitality, and I think that can be done without compromising (but in fact complementing!) “covenant renewal liturgy.” I’m just trying to figure out practically how all that works itself out. Your examples are very helpful and encouraging.
I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on the connection between “church culture” and “church size” if you ever have more time.
Blessings,
RL
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:25:52 -0000
From: “prairiepreacherca”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being liturgical
I certainly have wrestled with this issue, Rich. You’re exploring a very important issue here.
I’m sure you’ve already read Jeff Meyers on this. He makes a great point when he says that in corporate worship “evangelism per se is ruled out”, particularly in the form that it is usually conceived, and that “[t]he Church evangelizes when she goes _out_ from God’s presence to proclaim to the world that Jesus is Saviour and Lord (Mt 28.16–20; Acts 1.8).” (p 21)
I’ve done some other reading on this issue lately. Although you might not agree with everything he says, Harold Best has some keen insights in his recent book _Unceasing Worship: Biblical Perspectives on Worship and the Arts_ (Downers Grove, Illinois: 2003) Best detects the backwards movement of culture pouring into the church (it makes me think of a sewer backup, in many cases). It should be the other way around: the church should be pouring out the life-giving waters issuing from God’s throne (Rev 22.1) into the world culture. Best likens the situation to Babel. “[W]hen we spend so much time in our ecclessiastical efforts to do the construction from culture upward instead of from kingdom downward, we too can become scattered and confused.” (p. 170) What an apt picture for so much of Christian worship today! If we would only realize, he urges, that it is not culture that must guide and determine our worship, but that “God takes the initiative and does his building from his throne, at whose right hand the risen and ascended Christ is seated.” Often the lofty seat which only Christ can occupy is surrendered to the culture. He asks why we act as if music is the glue that holds the church together. (p. 151) And he suggests that we are often guilty of the same sin as the calf-making Israelites, using idols that “reduce God to a recognizable size and make him referentially familiar.” (p 165) I think he’s saying a lot of the same things as Jordan and Leithart.
Shouldn’t the church, for example, being showing the world what good music is, instead of the reverse? Prime examples: Handel’s Messiah, Bach’s St. Matthew’s Passion, Praetorius’s Christmas Mass, etc. I’d love to discuss this more!
Where can I obtain a copy of the paper of Keller which you mention? When did he write it? Perhaps you have read Keller’s contribution to D.A. Carson (ed.), _Worship by the Book_ (Grand Rapids, 2002). There Keller espouses “doxological evangelism” (a term from Edmund Clowney), and says that “God is to be praised before all the nations, and _as_ he is praised by his people, the nations are summoned and called to join in song.” (p. 218) I can work with this! He also refutes the common notion “that culture is basically neutral and that thus there is no reason why we cannot wholly adopt any particular cultural form for our gathered worship.” (p. 195; cf. 237) At the same time, however, it seems to me that he still surrenders too much to world culture in this contribution. I’d love to hear the thoughts of others on this.
I’d love to hear where you end up, Rich.
Theo Lodder
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:47:07 EST
From: Calvin3Max@aol.com
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being lit. . .
In a message dated 2/8/2005 10:30:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, “Rich Bledsoe” writes:
And indeed, as Rome, collapsed slavery disappeared in the larger world. There was no slavery in the Medieval world for more than a thousand years. It was only with the birth of the African slave trade, and as the principles of the Enlightenment took hold, that slavery and racism emerged in the modern world (notice the indifference of Shakespeare to the issue of color — racism is largely a modern phenomena) Then, slavery had to be reconquered all over again, and this has never happened apart from the church.
Rich,
I’m not sure I agree with your statement here. Slavery was practiced in the Islamic culture of the period. Virtually from the beginning and still today in some places Muslims kept slaves, most taken in their conquests. Perhaps you meant in Europe or the residual Roman Empire, if so please disregard.
Eric
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:13:41 -0000
From: “Rich Bledsoe”
Subject: tim keller vs. jim jordan; being missional vs. being lit. . .
Yes. I meant Christendom.
