• Home
  • About This Blog
  • Contact Me
  • Subscribe
  • Comment Policy

Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

  • Westminster Shorter Catechism Series
  • Sermon on the Mount Series
Home Archives for Church Leadership

I don’t have the chutzpah to pick up the first stone

Posted on July 7, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

I have heard it said that chutzpah is illustrated by the man who kills his mother and father and then pleads to the judge to let him off because he is an orphan. In other words, chutzpa is that behavior that knows no self limitation.

This evening a friend sent me a link to a web site which denounced Church A for associating with a man who associates with Group B. The author knows beyond a shadow of doubt that Group B is apostate and therefore Church A must also be apostate because they associate with someone who associates with Group B. I’d give you a link to the web site, but frankly it’s not worth reading.

The author of the web site condemned a whole bunch of people because of who they associate with. There was no indication that those condemned were leading people astray. There was no evidence presented that they were teaching heresy. They were condemned solely on the basis of association.

This reminds me of many of the encounters that Jesus had with the religious purists of his day. They condemned him for hanging out with disreputable people on a regular basis.

I’m not saying that what we believe doesn’t matter. I’m not saying that Scripture isn’t narrow and that the Gospel is not a narrow gate. Yes, Scripture is the truth and any belief that deviates from Scripture should be repented of immediately.

My point is that Jesus, not the self-appointed doctrinal policeman, is the gate-keeper and Jesus will know who is in relationship with him.

Jesus said to the would-be judges of his day, “he who is without sin should cast the first stone.” As I read the judgmental web site this evening, this phrase kept rumbling through my head. Who has the chutzpah to ignore his own sin and condemn someone else? Is that what we are to be about?

Can we stop with the condemnation of others and teach the truth? I know that the author of the web site in question is trying to be helpful. I have every reason to believe that he intends his work to be used to build up the church. Yet to me it seems rather to pull down than to build up.

How much damage does it do to create confusion where it need not be? How harmful is it to call someone’s character into question based on flimsy evidence? It seems to me that these tactics do more harm than good to the body of Christ.

I’ve heard it said that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Can we agree to teach the Bible without compromise? Can we strive to preach “Jesus Christ and him crucified”, as the Apostle Paul did?

My brother who wrote the article meant to do well but his words and the seeming emotion behind them hurt me. I was not encouraged, I was not built up, nor was I instructed in the truth of Jesus Christ. I was drug through the mud.

And in spite of this type of stuff, we wonder why the world thinks that the church is useless. Shame on us, we should know better.

Jesus said that the world would recognize us by our love. He did not say that the world would recognize us by our doctrinal purity. Love must be the priority.

Filed Under: Bible Reflection, Christianity and Culture, Church Leadership Tagged With: Jesus, pharisee, Religion

Hugging Porcupines and Other Ostensibly Stupid Behaviors

Posted on May 28, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 2 Comments

The Porcupines Among Us

PorcupineEvery church has one or more porcupines in attendance. The porcupine is the person who feels entitled to stand in judgment of the church and often acts in a way that is disruptive to body life through their sense of superiority and entitlement. They are not in open hostility, nor are they doing anything worthy of church discipline, yet they cause problems as a result of their prickly nature.

Dealing with Porcupines

The best response to a porcupine in the wild is to leave it alone and hope it goes away. While we might want our church porcupines to do just that, often they do not. How then are we to respond to the porcupines that refuse to go away?

While the porcupines in our church are not really enemies, Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:38-48 is instructive for dealing with them. Jesus tells us to do some things to our enemies that most people would think are weird or just plain stupid. In response to our enemies, we are called to:

  • Turn the other cheek
  • Give more than is asked
  • Go the extra mile
  • Love our enemies
  • Pray for those who persecute us
  • Greet your enemies (be friendly)
  • Do all these things perfectly

If this is the response to enemies that are dangerous, what then is the response to the porcupines who are merely annoying? I think that we are to embrace them and welcome them. The problem is that when you hug a porcupine, you’re going to feel the pain of the barbs. Many or most of the barbs will be aimed at church leadership, the very people who are trying to help. It is easy to give up and avoid the porcupine, but that is really not an option.

If we wonder about the wisdom of this, I think that it is instructive to look at Jesus’ interaction with the disciples. They were often slow on the uptake and occasionally abrasive. Jesus did not loose patience with them even when they displayed their worst behavior.

The Benefit of Porcupines

I think that God gives us porcupines for the same reason he gave Paul his thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7). Without the porcupines, we might loose sight of the fact of our dependence upon God. We might start believing that we have mastered church leadership. We might start relying on our abilities rather than on our Savior.

While we may not really enjoy porcupines, we can rest in the knowledge that God has them there for a purpose and we cannot see the end result. As with the disciples, many church leaders began their Christian walk as porcupines. So do not loose hope. God is not done with the porcupines or us as leaders.

Filed Under: Bible Reflection, Church Leadership Tagged With: Christianity, Church, Evangelism, God, Jesus, leadership, Religion and Spirituality

Church Membership – A Response to Matt Chandler

Posted on May 7, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 23 Comments

Full disclosure update: As of 2012, I no longer attend a Calvary Chapel.  While I still feel that church membership is not mandated by Scripture, I am now convinced that membership is beneficial because the member makes a clear commitment to be accountable for the church and be in support of the church.


imageA friend of mine, @kksine, asked me to read and comment on an article by Matt Chandler entitled Is Church Membership Biblical? which was published on the 9marks.org web site.

The question is a valid one: should there be a formalized process for determining who is and who is not a member of the local fellowship?

I agree with almost all of what Matt Chandler writes, my response is intended to provide clarification rather than rebuttal. We share the same goals but choose slightly different paths to get there. This is a preference issue and we have freedom to have or not have a formalized membership process in the local body.

Clarification #1 – Formalized Membership Process

Scripture does not mandate, nor does it preclude a formalized membership process. The verses cited in the article identify what should be done, but do not specifically indicate that a formalized membership process is necessary for compliance.

In 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 and Romans 12:4-8, where Paul uses the analogy of the Church as the Body of Christ, it is not necessary to infer a formalized process to determine who is a member of the body. In a sense, any believer who attends a local fellowship is a member of it, in that he is a part (the most basic sense of the word member) of the body of Christ.

I attend a Calvary Chapel which does not have a membership process. In Calvary Chapel, we have elders who make decisions with regard to church polity, we have church discipline, we have submission to the ruling elders [Update: The largest reason we left Calvary Chapel was because it is not elder ruled. There is an elder board but they are there to support the pastor in his decisions. Calvary Chapel has an episcopal form of government with the pastor holding the power.] and we know who is associated with our body. We seek to be obedient to Jesus Christ as a body and we seek to follow the Apostle’s direction as to how the local congregation should function. All are done without a formalized membership process.

Those who attend our fellowship on a regular basis have a sense of belonging and understand that to continue belonging to our fellowship, a submission to Jesus Christ, Scripture and the elders is required.

Clarification #2 – The Goal of Membership

The goal of membership is not stated in the article. Is the goal to determine who can vote and who cannot?

I can find no direct support in Scripture for a congregational form of church government. What I do see in Scripture is that the elders are to rule and lead the church. Scripture gives no indication that church members should be allowed to vote on church policy, the calling of a pastor, electing elders, etc.

Congregational government requires formalized membership as a means of controlling who can vote. If you want congregational government, you have freedom to do so, but you cannot make a case that Scripture demands this form of government.

Clarification #3 – Accountability and Church Discipline

In the article Matt seems to assume that without membership, church discipline would be impossible. I’d like to assure him that this is not the case.

I would turn this around and ask what he would do with someone attending his church without being a member who gives evidence of living in sin. Would he confront the sin? Or, is it only those who go through the formal process who are confronted? Do you allow the “sinner” to continue attending and only confront the issue when he comes forward for membership?

We have found that church discipline works without membership. When an issue comes to our attention, it is confronted. Typically what we find is that the one confronted either repents and works toward change, or he stops attending or goes to another church.

Clarification #4 – Maturity and Membership

Matt assumes that membership is necessary for a believer to progress toward maturity.

I agree that associating and belonging to a local fellowship is an expectation that Scripture places upon us. I also agree that belonging to a local fellowship is necessary for optimum spiritual growth. I do not agree that a formalized process and the signing of a document are necessary to have this sense of belonging.

In our fellowship, we see people who sit under the teaching of Scripture, interact with other believers in small groups, serve in the body and progress toward maturity, all without a formalized membership process.

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with having a formalized membership process. Scripture does not have anything negative to say about this that I can find. If your fellowship functions in this way, I am happy for you.

My point is that it is not mandatory to have this formalized process. Many local church bodies function according to Biblical priorities without this process.

This is a preference issue and if you prefer membership, I’m totally OK with that.

Filed Under: Church Leadership Tagged With: Church, government, pastor

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22

Follow Attempts at Honesty

Honesty in your Inbox

Post Series

  • Westminster Shorter Catechism Series
  • Sermon on the Mount Series
August 2025
SMTWTFS
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31 
« Jul    

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama

Copyright © 2025 · Focus Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in