Matt Capps Religion, Thoughts

Total Church on Evangelism

I recently picked up a copy of “Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community“. This book is written by the co-founders of The Crowded House, a church planting initiative in Sheffield, UK.

In this book they encapsulate the work of evangelism into the picture of a ‘three stranded rope’.

“Like three strands of a piece of rope, our approach to mission should involve these three elements.” They stress, “when considering this model, it is important to avoid imposing a supposed logical sequence.”

a. Building Relationships

b. Sharing the Gospel

c. Introducing People to Community

This model takes the corporate dimension of evangelism seriously. In this model the Gospel community exhibits the Gospel word.

“The Holy Spirit brings the church into existance through the gospel word. Through that same gospel word he continues to change people so that they become less lovers of self and more lovers of God and others. This is the community life that models the gospel because it is the life for which we were made. As non-Christians are exposed to this dynamic, they begin to see that the gospel word is more than a set of propositions to be assented to. They see it as the very power of God for healing and wholeness, as the word that brings life and blessing.” (67)

Good stuff…

Matt Capps Philosophy, Religion, Thoughts

The Gospel Coalition and the Themelios Journal

This is a great resource. The Gospel Coalition has one purpose; and they write “Our desire is to serve the church we love by inviting all of our brothers and sisters to join us in an effort to renew the contemporary church in the ancient gospel of Christ so that we truly speak and live for him in a way that clearly communicates to our age.”

One of their best resources is an online academic journal titled ‘Themelios’.

“Themelios is an international evangelical theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith. Its primary audience is theological students and pastors, though scholars read it as well.”

Check it out here!

Matt Capps Philosophy, Religion, Thoughts

Church History Teasers (Part 1): Tertullian’s Apology

A Brief Outline of the ‘Apology’ by Tertullian

Part 1: Chapters 1-9

In these chapters Tertullian argues that the experienced hatred of Christians is unjust, moreover that the judicial procedures involving persecution of Christians is unjust, seeing that the first accusation is simply bearing the Christian name. Tertullian then argues on account of Christian blamelessness and raises questions regarding the origin of laws that permit Christian persecution (An argument from Antiquity, “consider your roots, rulers”). He states that Christians are persecuted on ungrounded charges, and to search for the truth among rumors. Lastly, he gives an eternal perspective, ‘we are all men’.

Part 2: Chapters 10-16

These chapters are dedicated to refuting the accusation of sacrilege and treason, why worship pagan gods who are made from the dead? The insufficiency of such a religion is evident. This is why pagans must ‘prostitute their gods!’ Even when one reviews the ‘sacred rites’, the author argues, “Your gods have more to complain of you than of Christians.” There are no grounds for comparison when one looks at the offense of the cross, and the worship of other shapes.

Part 3: Chapters 17-23

Tertullian argues that there is only one true God; the Christian object of worship. This God reveals himself in the scriptures. The antiquity and majesty of the scriptures point to his Glory. But His glory is revealed even more fully in Christ: where God (divinity) and man (humanity) unite. Tertullian ends this section speaking of angels and demons, the proof of facts in spiritual matters, and the truth of Christ

Part 4: Chapters 18-35

Tertullian’s writing shouts, ‘your gods do not exist, your gods are unworthy!’ The Christian God is the dispenser of kingdoms! While Christians refuse to give in, the pagans fear amounts to hatred. It is in this section that Tertullian expounds upon the second ground of accusation; ‘treason against Caesar’. Claiming to the pagans, ‘you search for safety in Caesar’. A Christians safety is found in the one true God. In fact Christians even pray for Caesar and a delayed ending for Rome, because it is their God who appoints all things! While Caesar might be lord, he is not Lord. This is why Christians will pay no vain homage to Caesar.

Part 5: Chapters 36-50

In the last section Tertullian paints a picture of true Christianity, ‘we treat all men the same’, he argues, ‘we even love our enemies!’ He argues that there is nothing wrong with Christians rejecting what pleases pagans, and pagans rejecting Christian delights. He asks, what wrong have Christians done, ‘See how we love one another?’ He then explains that the sources of trouble are to be found in pagan human affairs. Christians are being charged on grounds of the name not wrong deed, Christians are without crime! Tertullian then issues a challenge to review the charges against Christianity based on reality, not on the speculations of poets and philosophers. But, what ever the end may be, Christians would rather be condemned that apostatize from God. In fact, he argues that in continuing to persecute Christians, the pagans must understand that ‘the blood of Christians is seed!’

Tertullian’s Argument

Tertullian’s Apology is formally addressed to the ‘rulers of the roman empire’. The Apology is primarily an account of the Christian experience of hatred and injustice at the hands of the Romans. Tertullian strives in his argumentation to demonstrate the absurdity of pagan religions in comparison to the truths of Christianity.

The Apology is well argued at most points. One of the purposes of Apology seems to be exposing the absurdity of pagan religions. Tertullian does this well. But his argumentation is not well balanced with a call to action in refuting the Roman governments cause for persecuting the Christians. While aggressively attacking the logic behind persecuting Christians, Tertullian takes a passive stance when it comes to action in ending this injustice. He basically ends the Apology like this, go ahead “kill us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust; your injustice is the proof that we are innocent.” Tertullian leans so hard on the divine providence of God in these situations of persecution that he presents the Romans as playing their ordained role in the drama of the early church. While this may be true from a ‘divine’ perspective it places Christians as passive targets of injustice from a human perspective, and empowers the Romans to continue justified in their hatred towards the church. Tertullian calls the pagan poets and philosophers ‘sublime speculators’, no doubt the Roman officials saw the Christians in the same light (this is also true of Tertullian in the section on spirit’s having wings). While is it true for Christians that “The oftener we (Christians) are mown down by you (pagans), the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.” (53) The implementation for action on the part of Christians seems lacking. This is illuminated by the escapism further heightened in the statement, “only one thing in this life greatly concerns us, and that is, to get quickly out of it.” (45)

Now, Tertullian’s Apology does have strengths, especially in regards to a model for Christians in civil affairs. While Tertullian argues in the same vain of ‘Jerusalem having nothing to do with Rome’, he well establishes that the essence of religion is voluntary worship not government alliance. In fact, it is mentioned that Christians render to Caesar what is his without paying vain homage like the pagans. Tertullian’s case is built upon the experiential evidence of ‘how the Christians love one another.’(42) This provides an excellent model of civil engagement, Christians “do not hesitate to share…earthly goods with one another.”(42) Tertullian then adds to his argument with a question grounded in experience, “who has ever suffered harm from our (Christian) assemblies?”(43).

It is important to note, Tertullian highlights that the unjust persecution of Christians is more explicit in a society that champions ‘freedom in religion’. He makes it quite clear that it is Christians, and Christian’s alone who are “forbidden to say anything in exculpation of themselves.”(2) Tertullian eloquently paints a picture of Roman officials fearing that the truth of Christianity (9), and the absurdity of their charges against Christians will somehow work against their own power in society. This is one of the strongest points of the Apology, Tertullian probes the minds of the Roman rulers exposing the logic behind their thoughts. In the end I feel that Tertullian had made a full exhibition of the Christian’s case for innocence and being mistreated on wrong grounds. He then asked the most poignant of questions, “Why, then, are, we not permitted an equal liberty.”(48) The answer could be found, I believe, in the profound statement, “truth and hatred come into our world together. As soon as truth appears, it is regarded as an enemy.” (9) This might be the only explanation that fits.

Matt Capps Thoughts

Interpreting New Testament Letters

In reading “Preaching God’s Word” I found some helpful principles in interpreting New Testament letters. The authors Carter, Duvall, and Hays provide some clear and simple clues for observing important characteristics.

1.    Letters were considered to be substitutes for the personal presence of the author.

For an Apostle of Christ a letter functioned as an extension of their authoritative presence. With the limitations of travel and technology in the New Testament times a handwritten letter was the most efficient way of communicating beyond physical reach.

2.    New Testament letters were occasional or situational.

We always hear- ‘interpret a text in its context’; this is the reason. New Testament letters were written to address specific situations faced by real churches. Knowing the situation or occasion of the New Testament church will allow you to identify the theological principles within the letter as was intended. (This would clear up any discussion of the Paul vs. James on works; knowing that Paul was addressing a church dealing with legalism, and James was dealing with people who had become lazy and needed a reminder that real faith produces works).

3.    New Testament letters were meant to be read aloud over an over to specific congregations.

In our day we read letters silently and privately. This was not the case in New Testament times. Letters were read aloud, therefore they lend themselves to oral presentation. Plus, they were not composed quickly as we compose emails. A letter was written with careful thought- they designed each letter for maximum impact on those particular listeners in particular situations.

4.    The Letter’s opening often included clues for interpreting the whole letter.

If you notice, some letters begin with an affectionate tone ‘beloved’, or ‘saints’; while others don’t (Galatians). There is a reason for this. Also, watch for commands in the opening of a letter. A New Testament letter usually follows the opening- body- and conclusion outline. Watch for strong signals as to their purposes in writing the letter.

Matt Capps Thoughts

Defining Expository Preaching

For one of my seminary classes I had to consider how Brian Chapell’s Christ-Centered Preaching compares with other homiletic books, in his definition of ‘expository preaching’. Chapell argues that an expository message is “a message whose structure and thought are derived from a biblical text, that covers the scope of the text, and that explains the features and context of the text in order to disclose the enduring principles for faithful thinking, living, and worship intended by the Spirit, who inspired the text.”

Many definitions for expository preaching have been offered in the last century. One of the main concerns of homiletic studies deals with question; ‘what are the essential components of an expository message?’ Some writers break from Chapell and align with the simplicity of J.I. Packer’s definition in arguing that Bible exposition is to ‘open’ the Bible and ‘bring out of the text what is there’.  While this is true, Packer provides no description beyond the overall nature of an expository message like Chapell. In the same way John Broadus once wrote that “an expository discourse may be defined as one which is occupied mainly, or at any rate largely, with the exposition of Scripture.”  Like Packer, Broadus definition provides little explanation beyond the overarching nature of an expository sermon, not providing a description of its components.

Steven Matthewson adds the necessary component of application to his definition; for him it is “preaching that exposes the meaning of a text of scripture and applies that meaning to the lives of the hearers.”  Yet unlike Matthewson, Chapell defines application with more clarity as “the enduring principles for faithful thinking, living, and worship.”  In some cases, too much clarity can be harmful and regulate too far in defining the essentials of expository preaching.

Charles Koller’s three part definition illustrates these dangers; arguing that “an expository sermon consists of exposition plus application and persuasion”…it “derives its main points…from the particular paragraph or chapter or book of the Bible with which it deals”…and “makes use of a thesis in which the sermon has its unity and around which it is organized.”  While this definition is clear and explanatory, Koller is too precise in limiting an expository message to dealing with a ‘particular paragraph or chapter’ of the Bible. In his classic definition of expository preaching Haddon Robinson defined it as “the communication of a biblical concept. Derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality of the preacher, then through him to his hearers.”  Where Koller was too specific, Robinson was too elusive with the terminology ‘biblical concept’. A ‘biblical concept’ could be any idea that is true and/or has a biblical foundation, Chapell argues that these justifications do not mean that any biblical concept “has a place in an expository message.”  Chapell is more specific than Robinson when he writes that an expository sermon is “derived from a biblical text”  Like Chapell, Albert Mohler Jr. identifies the ‘biblical text’ as the source of an expository sermon, he wrote that an expository message “sets forth the meaning and message of the biblical text and makes clear how the Word of God establishes the identity and worldview of the church as the people of God.”

With all that is discussed above, there is one possible weakness to each of these definitions. In his definition Chapell limits the role of the Holy Spirit to the application of the text, and the inspiration of the text itself. He writes that the preacher’s message should expose the “principles for faithful thinking, living, and worship intended by the Spirit, who inspired the text.”  While there is nothing technically wrong Chapell’s definition at this point, it lacks a description of the Holy Spirit’s role in the proclamation of a textual unit. Part of Greg Heisler’s definition will prove the point; he argues that “expository preaching is the Spirit-empowered proclamation of biblical truth derived from the illuminating guidance of the Holy Spirit by means of verse by verse exposition of the Spirit inspired text…”  Not only is the Spirit the author and applier of the text, the preacher is Spirit empowered in preparation and delivery.

While different components of the definitions mentioned above seem fitting to constructing a concise yet explanatory definition of expository preaching, not all are completely satisfactory. With that in mind, combining the definitions listed above, it is this author’s opinion that an expository sermon is when a preacher ‘through the power of the Holy Spirit (Heisler) proclaims a message from a textual unit of the Bible (Chapell) while faithfully representing the historical, contextual, grammatical, and literary nature of that unit (Robinson), for the purpose of establishing the identity and worldview of the church as the people of God as its application (Mohler).

I am still sorting this out. Any thoughts?

Matt Capps Thoughts

Rethinking Retirement: John Piper

John Piper’s new book “Rethinking Retirement” is a call for older saints to not waste their lives. This is a message that Piper repeats often, it’s something the American church needs to hear. Piper always provides a sobering call on issues often overlooked. Here’s a section from Piper’s book “Don’t Waste Your Life” which illustrates his concern;

Consider a story from the February 1998 edition of Reader’s Digest, which tells about a couple who “took early retirement from their jobs in the Northeast five years ago when he was 59 and she was 51. Now they live in Punta Gorda, Florida, where they cruise on their 30 foot trawler, play softball and collect shells.” At first, when I read it I thought it might be a joke. A spoof on the American Dream. But it wasn’t. Tragically, this was the dream: Come to the end of your life—your one and only precious, God-given life—and let the last great work of your life, before you give an account to your Creator, be this: playing softball and collecting shells. Picture them before Christ at the great day of judgment: “Look, Lord. See my shells.” That is a tragedy. And people today are spending billions of dollars to persuade you to embrace that tragic dream. Over against that, I put my protest: Don’t buy it. Don’t waste your life. (Don’t Waste Your Life, 45-46)

Get the point? In his new book, Piper challenges Christians who are finishing their formal careers; He writes…

I am sixty-two years old—just about the oldest baby boomer. Behind me come 78 million boomers, ages forty-three to sixty-one. Over 10,000 turn sixty every day. What will it mean to live those final years for the glory of Christ? How will we live them in such a way as to show that Christ is our highest Treasure?

John Piper argues that it will mean a radical break with the mindset of our unbelieving peers. Especially a break with the typical dream of retirement. Too see the book click here.

Piper also wrote an article where he discusses the question “Should I Invest for Retirement?”

Matt Capps Religion, Thoughts

The Megachurch and Emerging Generations

In a recent survey titled “What Americans Really Believe” by Dr. Rodney Stark (Baylor University Press, 2008) he concluded that ‘Megachurches are more than a mile wide and an inch deep’.

The survey found that “Even with congregations of more than 1,000 members, the Baylor Religion Survey found that megachurches surprisingly are more intimate communities than small congregations of less than 100 members. Megachurch growth is mostly due to their members, who tend to witness to their friends, bringing them into the group, and witness to strangers, much more often than members of small churches”

“When compared to small congregations, the survey found that megachurch members display a higher level of personal commitment by attending services and a Bible study group and tithing. These people are as interested in evil and sin as anybody in any of the churches. Their levels of satisfaction are high, their volunteerism in community service is very high and their outreach efforts are absolutely phenomenal.”

“I’ve heard stories when you go to some of the megachurches that you have to get tickets and parking like it’s a football game,” said Dr. Carson Mencken, professor of sociology at Baylor. “You go to a football game, you sit next to people you don’t know very well, and so I figured that’s exactly what megachurches are going to be like. The survey reveals the megachurches are not like that at all. These people do know each other, and they’re networked into the church through their friends and friends of friends.”

This survey is interesting in light of the predictions that Mark Driscoll argued about the emerging generations in his book “Confessions of a Reformission Rev.”;

“Emerging and missional churches will include more mega-churches than ever, and they will be both attractional and missional in the philosophy of ministry. If a church is truly missional, it may become a mega-church for three reasons: (1) the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ is powerful and effective, (2) a truly outward-focused missional church will experience conversion growth, and (3) a truly missional church has such a burning desire for cultural transformation that it must grow large enough to serve a whole city.”

“Emerging generations indeed feel more comfortable in larger churches. This information runs contrary to much of the popular teaching today, which asserts that the future of the church will be house churches and smaller church communities. I believe that the megachurch phenomenon is not over but just beginning, that the ‘experts’ are simply wrong, and that the future trend will be toward the extremes of very small and very large churches.” (Pages 30-31)

With all that said, I have one question…where do these finding’s fit in the overall discussion of Biblical Ecclesiology? I think Dr. John Hammett has made some good suggestions in his book “Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches” on his concerns with the ‘changing landscape’ of the church.

Any thoughts?

Matt Capps Philosophy, Religion, Thoughts

Communicating Sin in a Postmodern World

I am currently reading a collection of articles on evangelizing postmoderns called “Telling The Truth“, edited by D.A. Carson. In a section called ‘critical topics’ Mark Dever writes a chapter called ‘Communicating Sin in a Postmodern World’. He starts by making some clear observations of our current social situation.

In our day it is quite evident that there is an overall spirit of evasion when it comes to responsibility, an academic atmosphere of relativism, and with science holding the monopoly on ‘truth’ there is much supernatural skepticism. John Milton painted a wonderful picture of the ‘postmodern mantra’ in Paradise Lost;

“The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a heaven hell, a hell of heaven”

This is what Dever called ‘refined relativism’ at its finest, the idea that “offhand affirmations of self expression” have been set “over and against a standard outside ourselves”. (140) We live in a world where taste triumphs over truth. In postmodernity there is no ‘metanarrative’ (overall meaning), moreover the postmodern mentality asserts that there is not a ‘metanarrator’- or God (141-142). After establishing a context for our current barriers to the Gospel, Dever offers four basic ideas as a solution of communicating the vanishing idea of sin to a postmodern generation. Here are some thoughts and notes on what Dever had to say;

1. Communicate God’s Truth Carefully

In our culture it would be advantageous to assume that everyone means something different when using the term ‘God’. “This is a time of special opportunity for Christians to lean more about being careful with the gospel, to weed out some of the cultural assumptions that have wedded themselves in our minds to the gospel, and learn to listen more carefully to those who talk with us. (143)

Therefore, we need to communicate the truth about God that has been revealed. As Calvin wrote, “nearly all wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern.” (1.1.1)

2. Pure Christian Community should be Guarded with Accountability

The Christian life is to be lived, in part, by folding yourself into a series of committed relationships united around faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In the local church and the nexus of committed relationships there, the boundaries of our identity are set by the interactions with others. (146-147)

In recovery of the importance of community, don’t ever think that it replaces the vertical relationship with God. The role of community is to supplement and reflect this relationship. (148)

3. Show that Our Conscience Exposes Sin

“We think of community as providing the external boundaries of the self, as that which helps to make ourselves obvious to ourselves. The community is the circumference of the self” but we also must consider the ‘center’. (148)

People not only need to grasp the “theoretical concept of evil and wrong, but the fact that they are evil and wrong.” People need to consider their own consciences, this is difficult since postmodernism encourages “the evacuation of the responsible self”. More than that, it is not in their self interest to do so. People do not like to hear that they are accountable to their actions. Often people will dismiss us as Christians because they equate our beliefs with our biases.

4. Point to God as the Active Agent in Conversion

More than anything, the truths explained above illustrate that man cannot ‘save’ himself. Therefore, all conversation should “highlight the truth that conversion is only by God’s Spirit.” (149) We cannot bring that which is dead to life, it must be God who brings forth salvation.

Concerning our role, “we simply need to be faithful messengers. We don’t have to understand everything.” (150) While the Bible does not explain things exhaustively, it is sufficient for saving faith through Christ Jesus.

Matt Capps Religion, Thoughts

David Horner on ‘The Fallibility of Ministers’

Today our staff heard from David Horner, the pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Raleigh, N.C. He recently published a book titled “A Practical Guide for Life and Ministry“, a book devoted to those seeking to find balance in ministry.

Horner began with 1 Peter 4:12-16, bringing to surface that troubles will come our way. In ministry you are always facing ‘trouble’. Sometimes these troubles come from mistakes (which we all make), sometimes troubles come from false accusations or ‘hear say’.

The one thing that really struck me (which was very similar to J.D. Greear’s talk to our staff yesterday) was the idea that ‘we as pastors need to acknowledge our fallibility’. This was so refreshing. Some people in ministry would disagree and argue that we should ‘never let down our guard’…’keep your people from really getting to know the true you’…’be very careful to reveal your struggles’…’carefully protect your reputation’…see, there is this idea that acknowledging your fallibility= your people not being able to trust and follow you. I do not know where we got this notion in ministry?

Horner said it well, “while confessing your mistakes/sin may be bad for your reputation, its great for your character” (It’s sometimes important to distinguish mistakes from sin). Yes, you will have to take the initial blow for your mistake or sin. But in the long run we need to understand that there are benefits to failure. “Mistakes are not fatal as long as we see them as stepping stones”. In fact, “once you have needed grace, you’re less likely to withhold it”.

Matt Capps Personal, Religion, Thoughts

J.D. Greear on a ‘Motive Check for Ministers”

Today our church staff spent a few hours with J.D. Greear (not to be confused with T.D. Jakes…long story) at a retreat. J.D. is the pastor of The Summit Church in the Raleigh-Durham area of N.C. It was a really encouraging-challenging time for us as a staff, and me personally. J.D. shared God’s story as it pertained to his life and ministry. He also shared about the innovative ways that The Summit has been able to reach their community for the glory of God. But the most lingering thing that I walked away with came from one simple exercise he led us through.

J.D. gave us a list of questions that was intended to be a guide through a ‘motive purification process’. In ministry it is often easy to justify different things by using ‘God talk’. It is easy, as J.D. said, “for people with the idol of success to hide in ministry”. Often we wrongly base our success and failures on the opinions of others, and other standards that are far from our primary purpose as ministers; which is (in my opinion) to show/tell others of God’s mercy and grace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Ministry is about nothing else but the glory of God. It is good to check yourself often, so here are the questions,

1. When are you most depressed?

2. What makes you really angry?

3. At what point in your life are you the happiest?

4. What makes you worry the most?

5. What do you look down on others about?

6. What has made you bitter in life?

7. Whose approval do you seek?

8. If you could change one thing about your life right now, what would it be?

9. Where do you turn for comfort?

10. What do you really sacrifice for?

I don’t think I need to apply these for you, they are pretty clear. These questions are very revealing of our sinful motives, yes…even in ministry.

Note: This reminds me of a poem that C.S. Lewis once wrote (Click Here).