I Predict the Future (Or At Least Offer Some Encouragement About Where To Go)

The other day I was talking with another church planter here in Portland and the topic came up in which we both see a fairly major shift in church philosophy looming on the horizon.  For the past 20 years the goal of most evangelical congregations has been to get as big as they possibly can.  Many in my generation have this pervasive feeling that that mindset is evidence of the church buying in to the “bigger-is-better” attitudes of most of America.

The trend among 20-somethings in most places in America is a desire to be a part of smaller, more organic/natural, communities that emphasize simplicity over big production worship services.  When I was in Grand Rapids, I attend Mars Hill Bible Church several times.  Each time, attendance was drastically lower, resulting in an announcement the last time I was there that they would be ending 1 of their 3 services.  I suspect a number of mega-churches around the nation are experiencing similar struggles in keeping the current college and young-adult group around.  Much has been said about this.  Conversely, the house-church movement is growing and more small church plants are thriving and doing a better job of producing disciples than the big churches with their big budgets.

I have to admit that I frequently find myself wishing for a large congregation; day-dreaming about what it would be like to start a church and become the next Rob Bell or Francis Chan.  We have to admire these men who are able to pull together just the right mix of people who go out and take their communities by storm.  I have no doubts that God has worked through these men and that lives have been transformed by their preaching of the Gospel.

Filed under: Church, Church Planting, Discipleship, Leadership, Ministry

Let’s Try This Out (more on Matthew 2:13-23)

After publishing my previous post and asking for input from people over Twitter & Facebook, I think I may have gotten somewhere.  One friend suggested I listen to a sermon.  In itself, I didn’t find the sermon to be all that helpful, but what it did do for me is get me thinking about sermons.  I seldom listen to sermons online, simply because I want to avoid the risk of being tempted to re-preach something.  What I study the Bible and write sermons, I do my best to come to the text trying to understand what it’s saying and what value does it have for the congregation I’m preaching to, apart from any theological bias (although it’s impossible for anyone to do that perfectly).

But I started searching the internet for sermons on Matthew 2:13-23.  I’ve been searching for commentary, but never sermons.  I came across a sermon that actually did a pretty good job speaking to the questions that have been holding me up with this text (but he misses the application, giving in to the simplistic providence theme I’m trying to avoid…see yesterday’s post for my reasons why).  But what this sermon did do is help me see a rather important connection that I had been overlooking…

The tendency that we often have when looking at this text is to focus on one of two things; we either focus on Jesus’ flight and return, or we focus on Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents.”  Much has been made of the lack of historical evidence supporting the “slaughter,” so we tend to be more incline to spend our time and energy focusing there.  But the text doesn’t give an extraordinary amount of attention to either point.  Matthew is focusing primarily on Jesus, trying to say something about him.  Based on the book as a whole, I’m coming to the text assuming that Matthew is still working to show his readers that Jesus is the messiah.  That is exactly what Matthew is doing, but not in the way we may expect him to – which is one of the reasons I’ve missed a very important “background text/figure.”  But the typical Jewish reader would have picked up on it immediately.

Filed under: Bible Study, Culture, Ministry, Theology

A Little More on Matthew 2:13-23

Yes, I’m still going around in circles with this.  In a previous post, I suggested that Matthew enters into a “sub-plot” of sorts here by recounting salvation history, all in an attempt to show Jesus the second Adam who ultimately brings salvation to God’s people (i.e. the messiah).  The problem is that, while I may have been the one to write it, I’m not completely convinced of it.  So I’m still wrestling with the escape to Egypt, “slaughter of the innocents,” and return to Judea.

I’m trying to keep in mind the fact that Matthew seems to have a three-fold focus for his gospel: (1) to show that Jesus is the promised messiah and (2) that the proper reaction then is to become his disciple which (3) is expressed/proven predominantly through personal missions.  I have this gut feeling that the previous sentence may be the reason I’m having such a hard time wrapping my head around this…but I’m not sure yet.

I raised these same questions/observations in the earlier post, but I feel as though it’s worth looking at them again:

1. Through his quotation of Hosea 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:15, Matthew believes it’s important that his readers (mostly traditional Jews) see a connection between Jesus’ time in Egypt and Israel’s enslavement and exodus.  This was important enough for Matthew to offer several proof-texts – but how does that connection re-inforce the three-fold purpose? (I think the answer to this question is key to unlocking the meaning of these 10 verses…)
2. What is the point/call to action of Jesus’ own exile to Egypt for us today?  How is this relevant for today’s audience?  I think the simple answer is something having to do with God’s providence, but I also fear that’s giving in too easily to one of Reformed theology’s favorite doctrines.  In other words, I think providence is too simplistic and difficult to fit-in to Matthew’s over-all purpose; it seems disjuncted…
3. The two OT passages the Matthew definitively quotes both strike me as a bit of a stretch in terms of their application to Jesus.  This is causing problems for me.  Hosea 11 is a reference to Israel, and I really doubt that the Pauline concept of the new Israel had been developed enough by the time Matthew was written to apply it here.  Jeremiah 31 refers to the Babylonian captivity of Israel.  Essentially, Matthew is saying that although these words were written to describe what happened then, they are actually referring to what is happening here.  My hermeneutical method doesn’t permit me to apply these verses to this scene in Matthew.
4. What is the theological/cultural/exegetical/and hermeneutical payoff for Matthew’s original readers for making this equation?  This is also a key question for getting at the heart of this text.  And yet again, I’m stuck here…

So here’s your job: what ideas, thoughts, insights, questions, etc. etc. do you have to unravelling Matthew 2:13-23.  This is the next text I’m preaching on, so I’d really like it if I could get some idea of what’s happening here before I have to preach it.

Filed under: Bible Study, Christian Living, Discipleship, Evangelism, Ministry, Theology

How To Plant a Church

I’ve had several conversations over the past few weeks in which I’ve been asked, How do you start a church? There are a lot of ideas about how to start a church with virtually every well-known church planter writing a book or two about the process they went through.  I’ve read enough of these books to know that nobody has the right answer.  The reason is that there’s no such thing as a single right and most effective way to plant churches.  Some church planters never intended to start a new church, it just happened; other have tried several different models in several different places but have repeatedly come up short.  Church planting requires a different strategy for different people in different places.

But in any case, it seems necessary to me to have at least the basic framework of a strategy/process in place within the first few months.  The first year of a church plant is vital to creating the DNA of a church.  Exactly like DNA in the biological sense, the DNA of a congregation determines everything about that congregation: what will it look like, how will it function, how will it deal with changes and trials, who will be a part of it, etc.  I’m inexperienced, but I suspect that most church plant attempts greatly underestimate the influence and importance of a church’s DNA.  So in planting a new church here in Portland, I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about DNA and how best to proceed so that this future congregation will be set-up for success and effectively minister to the community.

Filed under: Church, Church Planting, Discipleship, Leadership, Ministry

lifeStream Church is…

This is our vision statement for lifeStream Church:

lifeStream Church is a gathering of messy people who creatively strive to love God, love others, and follow Jesus every day, in every possible way.

So far I’ve tried to make everything about lifeStream Church rooted in a solid theological, yet relevant, foundation.  That includes the name: lifeStream Church.  I’ve discussed the theological implications of the name in more general terms here, so I’ll skip right to walking through our vision statement.

First, we are a gathering.  I’m intentionally avoiding the term “community” because gathering has a more temporary nuance to it.  The point is, lifeStream Church is not intended to be a place where people come and spend hours per week at.  In fact, we’re hesitant to let lifeStream Church ever be a “place” to begin with.  lifeStream Church is about the people of Portland and their relationship with God.  We want to be a place where people come for a short period of time, and then disperse, going back and out into their communities.  The last thing we want is for people to replace the communities they’re already a part of with new ones created by the church.  Instead, as a church we will gather together once a week for fellowship, singing, prayer, sacraments, and studying God’s Word.  In this way, we are more effectively “salt and light.”

Second, we are messy.  We are imperfect people who need a savior.  We don’t expect people to have everything together before they come.  Anyone and everyone is welcome just as they are , any time, anywhere.  Recognizing our brokenness helps us to appreciate God’s grace all the better.  We are all growing and striving to learn what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

Third, we do what we do creatively.  God created all people with their own unique set of gifts, skills, and abilities.  Worshipping and serving God looks different for different people.  As long as it’s not prohibited in Scripture, we want people to do the next three things in a way that uses those gifts to their full extent.

Fourth, the three things we creatively strive to do are:

1. Love God
2. Love Others
3. Follow Jesus

We get this list from two key passages: Jesus’ summary of the Law (Matthew 22:34-39), and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20).  When it comes to how we are supposed to live, this seems like the most concise description we can come up with.

• By “love God” we mean that service and devotion to him is our top priority.  Everything we do, we want it to give glory to God and to point others to him as the reason we’re doing what we’re doing.
• By “love others” we’re saying that all people are worthy of love and respect.  We believe that all people are created in God’s image and should be treated accordingly.  It doesn’t matter if they share our individual political opinions, religious beliefs, or if we even like them.  Jesus doesn’t give any conditions or exclude anyone.  When we say “all people” we mean all people.
• By “follow Jesus” we are referring to what is usually called “discipleship.”  This is what distinguishes us from every other world religion.  Everything we do, we do because that’s the model/example Jesus left for us.  We seek to imitate Jesus in everything from our actions and interactions to our spiritual beliefs.

Finally, we don’t do these things for only an hour or two, one day a week.  We want to do these things every day in every possible way.  We see our faith as far more than just a set of beliefs; it’s a lifestyle.  And we believe that this lifestyle is the best kind of lifestyle a person could possibly live.  Therefore, this vision statement guides everything we do from our personal lives to what happens during our weekly gatherings to the way we structure lifeStream Church.

Our vision statement is intended to emphasize simplicity.  As an institution, lifeStream Church will create as few programs as possible.  We don’t want to create something that will be competing with another organization.  Instead, we believe that the best way to be followers of Jesus is to get involved with the numerous organizations and services that already exist within our community.  If there is an additional need, then we will develop something to meet that need.  We believe that the heart of Portland can be more effectively transformed when we spread out and work to apply the gospel where ever God has already placed us for his purposes (ya, we’re Calvinists ).

If you would like more information or would like to subscribe to our monthly newsletter, you can send me an email at jason.devries[at]att.net.

Filed under: Church Planting, Ministry