Skip to main content

Recently, I have become aware of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll.  What I found interesting was:  1.  They have grown as a church from about 60 members to over 5,000 members (and 15,000 weekly attendance) in about 16 years.   2.  They focus much of their effort as a primary ministry, towards abused women and single mothers.  (His "Real Marriage" course and book is an example.)   3.  His wife assists in prayers and advice in the Real Marriage sermon series.  4.  Their target audience is people between the ages of 17-34.   5.  They have about 100,000 downloads of sermons and seminars every week.  6.  They are intentionally "complementarian" in church   and family . 

Neil, excellent article.   Your four points are great!   And I would suggest that an active daily engagement with scripture makes the huge difference.  Having done both random scripture selections, and a progressive bible reading - following chapters in sequence, that reading through the bible a chapter or two at a time is more effective.  It gets you to see things otherwise missed.  Reading as a family cannot replace reading personally and alone.   Reading alone should not replace reading together as a family, especially when you have children.   And a devotional book to accompany the bible reading is always a bonus, but should not replace actual discussion of the bible passage in the family setting. 

I know some families who spend fifteen minutes or a half-hour at night time before the young kids go to bed.   Others who spend time first thing in the morning - they get up fifteen minutes or half-hour earlier so they can fit it in.   It takes time and committment.   It cannot just be squeezed in.  It cannot be shortened up.  It is not as effective or rewarding if it only happens once in awhile or sporadically.   It needs to be consistent and deserves time, just like it takes time to eat a meal.  

This practice provides a foundation and a context for your other three points.  Without this, the other three things can still be done, but will lose their purpose. 

Maybe part of the irony is that just following the church order, did not satisfy the reason for why article 65 was written?  Family visits were not made to have "meaningful" contact, whatever that means.  They were often done to fulfill a mere requirement;  to mark a job off a list.   But the real reason that they should be done, is to provide an opportunity for an evaluation of the faith growth of the family, a way of getting feedback on their participation in the church, and feedback on the activities, organization, leadership, and fellowship of the church (in the context of a message and guidance from scripture).  By itself it may not have much impact on the family, other than letting them know that the "official" church cares about them.  Maybe some gems of wisdom will pass on to help them in their daily life.  But it is a way of finding out if they need a small group ministry, or can participate in a ministry, or whether their young people are being nourished and strengthened, etc.   It establishes an initiation point of contact with elders, particularly when they may not know the elders well.   It is never an ending, but only a beginning of contact.  But a valuable beginning, hopefully resulting in more open communication in the future. 

A small church where everyone knows everyone, may find it beneficial to do once in three years, while larger churches, where members do not know each other well, may find a benefit to do it more often. 

I have not said anything till now, being leary of Proverbs 26:4.   But having heard DW's analogy what seems like a thousand times, I will only say that I find it personally vicious, pernicious, and malicious.   I find her continuous use of it obtuse, and careless of the feelings of others.  I find it interesting how she conveniently refuses to answer Doug's question, though she has no trouble answering every other concern, including manufacturing her own sidebars. 

She may feel like she is riding the back of the bus, but the church is not a bus, it is not a club, it is not a golf course, and no one has rights to tee times at classis.   If she wants to join a golf club instead of a church, she should do so.   If she wants to sit at the front of the local bus instead of participating in a church, she should do so.  

If her analogy was valid, then she should make that argument to the apostle Paul who asked women to be silent in the church and did not ask men to be silent in the church.  She should make that argument  to Christ who selected 12 male apostles.   She should make that argument to the early church who selected seven men of good repute to be assistants (some call them deacons).  She should accuse God of hurting her feelings because the twelve tribes of Israel were based on the sons not daughters of Israel.    If the analogy works in one direction, then it should also work in reverse.   She implies that because God chose twelve male apostles, He would not golf with blacks in heaven.   She implies that because God chose only males to be the heads of the twelve tribes of Isreal, that He would put women at the back of the bus in heaven.   

Her comments, and her inability to listen, and her fixation on her own feelings at the expense of scripture, at the expense of recognizing that God and Christ have themselves directly done what would offend her, makes me wonder about a very relevant  analogy regarding the women whom Paul told to be silent in the churches, and not to have authority over men. 

I feel that she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally, to not only sit at the back of the bus, but to get off the bus and walk.   I feel she would want christians who treat scripture sincerely and literally to get off the golf course.    I feel she would have been very unhappy with Jesus, if she had met him after he had chosen the twelve apostles.   I feel that if you do not follow society in its norms and "rights", that she would want you to leave, to get out of the way.   I am sorry that I have to feel that way, but I do. 

I have no questions for her, since I believe it would be a miracle for her to make an answer that she has not already made a thousand times before.   Further, I am not even slightly interested in  an answer that merely puts social pressure on christians to follow social norms, rather than scriptural precedents.   

Paul, I believe you are right about how the flood is often perceived, but scripture as you said, does give us a different indication.   To me, the flood indicates God's right to judge, and our inability to withstand judgement, outside of the simple grace of God.   It is God's right, and our total lack of rights, when it comes to our relationship with God.  It is not about just being bad or good.    It is about being obedient or disobedient.   It is about pride vs righteousness;   self vs humility.  

It's also about God planning our rescue (100 years of ark building).   Thousands of years of messiah promise.   Thousands of years of missionaries.   Praise the Lord!!!!

Paul, I appreciate your comments.   They are true.   My personal perspective related to this is:   we are presently going through a provincial election which makes media presentation and sound bites virtually the most important impact on the outcome of the election.   We do not need would be politicians with their sound bites trying to control a discussion about women at classis, nor about the Belhar, nor about any other issue, within the church setting.   We need sincere, considerate discussion with sincere listening and respect for others.   If we do not have this, then respect will be lost on all sides.  And then no discussion will be possible.

Great article!!!   I am copying this and giving a copy to every youth worker, and every parent of youth in our church.  Well written!!

Conduct a good relevant interview, not only on attitudes towards children, but also on what it means to live a life of obedience to Christ.   Get two references, if the volunteer position is outside of the local church.  In world missions and world relief situations, make sure that workers do not work alone nor travel nor visit alone;  this is to protect the workers as much as children, since in some situations workers can be tempted by adults, or their reputations (and god's work) can be sullied by mere rumor and innuendo.   When I was in Mexico for two weeks, the local pastor/missionary would not visit women without his wife present, and he took me along to several visits as a substitute chaperone/elder to prevent problems.   The same type of policy should be considered for dealing with children, although sometimes a semblance of privacy of conversations may be beneficial, so a common sense solution is required. 

The apostles were also regarded as elders.   So I don't think there is evidence that deacons were needed before elders.(not that it really matters...).  The Acts passage mentions selection of seven men, but as far as I can see does not specifically identify them as deacons.....although we make the assumption that's what they are.

"Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them."" " 

  1. 1 Peter 5:1

     To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:

     
  2. 2 John 1:1

    The elder, To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth—

     
  3.  3 John 1:1

    The elder, To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

Both "deacon" and "minister" and "servant" are derived from the greek word "diakonos".

A gift was already presented to elders in Acts 11, before elders were mentioned being appointed in Acts 14.

I rather agree with Paul Boice on this, although I understand Eric's concern.  Paying attention to the youth does not mean pandering to them;  it means treating them as a gift and responsibility from God.   God is not a special God of the youth, just like He is not a special god to the poor.   God is special to everyone.   But God gives the elders, olders, and more mature a responsibility to ensure that they are providing the education and instruction and welcome and respect for the youth and youngers who are God's treasure, loved by God.  We must allow these children of whatever age, to come to Christ and sit on his lap, and receive His love.  This should be part of the wisdom of the elders and the tradition we create.  If we do not do that, then we do not deserve the respect for either the elders, nor for the traditions.  

It is not that the youth are more important than the elders.  But they are not less important either, to Christ.  

As far as a council goes, if there is no distinction in governance between deacons and elders, then there is no need for classes to make a distinction either.  But some churches do make a distinction.   Still it is interesting that the same word we have translated as deacon comes from diakonos, which is also the word that is often translated as "minister".   The term elder as used in the  church comes from the greek term presbyteros, although the word episkopos (overseer) also is used to describe the task of the elders.   In our church, the elders have the dual roles of elder and deacon, somewhat similar to the very early church.   This is mostly because we are a small church. 

I don't know why anyone would be upset by being a junior elder.   Or a junior pastor.   Or a junior deacon.   Unless pride gets in the way.   I get more upset by elders being restricted from fulfilling their roles.   I get upset when elders want to pay someone else to do their jobs. 

 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’  

We often think this only refers to the poor and sick and downtrodden.   But if in our minds, our children are somehow less important than older people, then this verse also applies to the children.   If we neglect the children, then we are neglecting Christ, in essence.   And if we care for the children, then we have done it for Christ. 

But is it just the gathering church as a group that is responsible?   How does this apply to the parents?   Often parents do pander to children, and thus spoil them rotten, and teach them that materialism and education and sports and feelings and music and texting are more important than obedience to Christ.    Where are the examples of a present day Eric Liddell who refused to run on Sunday because Christ was more important to him than a national or Olympic medal or the approval of his earthly government?   How often do we find elders and Christian men spending more time watching the Super Bowl or Stanley Cup than they do leading their sons in spiritual walk with Christ?  How often do we find christian men neglecting devotions and prayer in order to spend more time making more money at their career?   Do we think that our youth do not notice this? 

In our example, and in our priorities, we often neglect the impact on our youth, and we will reap the results.   And when we do not neglect the children and their relationship to Christ, then we can also reap the rewards. 

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post