Get your gloves: we need to keep planting

What is it with evangelicals and their children!!

They want children in the service, children at home being educated, children's quality time, father and children's time, mother and children's time, children and children's time—STOP ...

I don't want an adults only church—I love my children—Jesus loved children too—but nowhere does it say everything has to be for them, about them or suitable for them. I want to say ‘Get a life’—send them to school—send them out to Sunday school. We can have them mornings before school, after school, evenings, Saturdays and most of Sundays, but I won't say that because then I am as bad as the rest, so instead I will say nothing—oops, too late.

(Anonymous evangelical who is too scared to give a name, but glad that neither my opinion or David Gibbs will stop us or our children getting into heaven!)

Name withheld (10/02/2010)

It seems that Steve Cree may have made some valuable ‘management’ observations other than theological ones. The classic business misjudgement is to confuse structure for strategy (or blame it for under performance). The assumption is ‘if we change the structure, the strategy outcomes are more likely to be achieved’. While it can be true that bad structure can inhibit good execution of strategy, the reverse is rarely the case. It is the right people doing the right things in the right way that actually makes stuff happen—usually within any type of structure. In business, a number of different structures can achieve exactly the same outcome. In the commercial world, structure (government) is important but is not the holy grail; it is not the strategy driver.

Effective flexibility usually happens within the structure not by ignoring it. It is the struggling manager who primarily focuses on changing structure to get the job done—often because it is the easier thing to do than the actual tougher thing that needs doing. It's often the most visible yet unnecessary change. In industry, the structure is frequently formed to support the type of activities and team. It is a reflection of the purpose, not the cause of the output. It then makes more sense, as the gospel mission is fixed, that a more common than not structure would reflect such a fixed mission imperative. But even a rigid structure is no leadership excuse for failure to deliver (speaking in a worldly sense).

The accepted Presbyterian system and understanding of New Testament church structure ought not, and does not, inhibit good execution of ministry strategy in seeking to achieve our common gospel mission. All the missional things discussed in Steve's article can happen (including fellow workers, etc.) without harming the orthodox Presbyterian understanding and application of local church government. It is only a problem when, as he warns, the structure becomes the focus and an end in itself.

It is not automatically obvious that 1 Timothy 5:17 proves that only some elders teach. It is simply saying some labour at it (their chief activity) while others don't labour at it (not their chief activity). Ensuring all are able to teach (even informally) seems to be a clear leadership control standard.

Continuing the business metaphor, a board can second anybody it chooses to help and advise it. Likewise, a session of elders can invite any fellow worker to attend meetings or parts of meetings regularly (albeit without gaining formal rights or responsibilities of an elder).

Steve Cree, has the leadership runs on the board in terms of ‘making the system work’. I am not convinced it is a new theology of church government that is needed to make it happen for others. I know he is not suggesting we form a new ‘Overseerterian’ Denomination.

Wayne Richards of General Manager, Presbyterian Church in NSW, Surry (10/02/2010)

Justin Moffatt comments that Brian McLaren's visit to Australia went by largely unnoticed in his circle. This was not the case in many other parts of Australia. My husband travelled from Darwin to Canberra to hear him (and others) speak, and he is not alone in travelling great distances to do so. This is not because he agrees with McLaren's philosophy/theology, but because he acknowledges his research in his field.

We need to be careful so as not to exclude ourselves from the right to engage in conversations, nor confirm others in their belief that all evangelicals are ignorant. I understand the argument that there is so much good knowledge out there, and that we should not waste our time reading rubbish or even material that is less than good, but I personally benefit from wrestling with texts. I have often learned more from engaging with material that I disagree with in part. Learning to discern is essential.

McLaren is one of many voices in the Emergent church. We even have some homegrown voices. One of the problems of the Emergent church (just like evangelical, liberal or progressive churches) is that it is largely undefined. This is something that postmoderns like McLaren delight in, causing great frustration to moderns. Right or wrong, this is an anxiety we are going to have to deal with.

Leeanne Zamagias of Sanderson, NT, AUS (10/02/2010)

I read Steve Cree's article on thinking missionally about church structures with a mixture of irritation and high praise. Strange bedfellows? Well, yes, but I can't help being irritated when people write as if matters of church order, which others have wrestled long over, have now been resolved by the author's latest contribution. This was compounded when he got into my ‘high praise’ section, but was using phrases like “We have acclaimed Paul as the great ‘missionary to the Gentiles’, but overlooked those who laboured at his side”. I was left wondering who were the ‘we’ being referred to here. Steve Cree and who? All Matthias readers? All Sydney Anglicans? All Protestants? Denominational and interdenominational missions have been pondering and practising the ‘fellow worker’ theme that Steve so excellently drew attention to for some years, as they have comprehended it under the all-purpose term ‘missionary’. But all strength to your arm, Steve; those of us who are itinerant or semi-itinerant workers, serving in teams as fellow workers are always encouraged when our place in the New Testament ministry is recognized, rather than viewed as a role that seems to work but that is not quite biblical because it doesn't seem to fit into the eldership/overseer/deacon categories. Some more attention to the ministry of evangelist would be welcome next time Steve puts pen to paper.

Paul Morris of Rose Bay, NSW, AUS (17/02/2010)

Why did Steve Cree feel the need to spend three pages attempting to diminish the importance of elders in the governance of the local church before his worthwhile observations and excellent concluding thoughts on fellow workers? To suggest that there is no pattern of church leadership established in Acts and the Epistles is ludicrous. Quite simply, Paul specifically appointed elders in all the churches he had responsibility for, and gave specific instruction (to Timothy and Titus) on the abilities, character traits and ethical standards required for these leaders. Presumably this was because it is God's chosen way for his church to execute its mission, which is also more specifically described than “the gospel” as “[making] disciples of all nations, baptizing them … [and] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20).

Several cases of poor interpretation are used to support Cree's opening tirade. Firstly he suggests that Luke doesn't describe “elders” in Acts 11:30 because people would assume he means the same thing as in Luke 22:66. However in Luke, he does describe what the elders were: “both the chief priests and teachers of the law” (Luke 22:66 NIV), and this is not going to be the composition of a Christian eldership. Secondly, Cree argues that elder/presbuteros and overseer/episkopos are not interchangeable, but that ‘overseer’ is a subset of the general term ‘elder’. Sorry, but I just don't think the passages identified read that way. If anything, the specific title “elder” is used first, then the more general term for the function “overseer” later.

Eldership is not mentioned along with gifts because it is not a gift; it is a role. Elders will have a variety of gifts, which will include teaching the word. Nothing limits the range of gifts or other ministries that the elders may exercise; likewise, nothing limits the range of gifts or ministries that any non-elder may exercise, except the character standards and reputation identified for leadership roles of elders or deacons. Paul stresses specific requirements for elders and deacons because they are appointed positions within a local church structure.

Perhaps leadership by a plurality of godly elders with a mandate to teach God's word, shepherd the flock and protect sound doctrine is the best foundation for team-based gospel ministry from a local church?

Andrew Hackett of Normanhurst, NSW, AUS (17/02/2010)