3 Reasons why I’m encouraged in overhearing this conversation:

1. God is already doing stuff is Lawrenceville.
2. There are countless other Christians out there struggling and fighting for their faith.
3. Nothing this guy is saying new (It’s the same stuff that Christians have wrestled against since Jesus ascended).

Knowledge of Theology

Of course a major part of getting a masters degree in theology will be to study and
learn about theology. As many people would assume, I came out of my time at seminary with a much deeper understanding of the Bible and Theology.

Knowledge of History

What you might not realize is that seminary also requires a number of church history classes. Understanding the history of the church is a very important part of being a pastor. As Anthony Bradley recently noted over in World Magazine, the protestant church is in large part detached from its history, and that is causing alot of problems. We have to relearn that the Christian faith is an old faith, and there are countless events which have shaped our faith at the beginning of this century. Faith that is detached from its history is going to suffer.

Examples of Older Pastors

A prerequisite to become a professor at my seminary (RPTS) was that you had to have previously served as a pastor in a local church. This meant that for three years I was surrounded by some really good examples of older and wiser pastors. Of course there were things that I disagreed with, and of course not every professor was equally gifted at being a pastor, but it was a great time of learning by example.

A Safe Place to Ask Hard Questions

One of the things I appreciated more than anything else was that in seminary I never felt liked there were topics that we couldn’t talk about, or questions that we couldn’t ask. I came out of seminary with a much deeper and nuanced understanding of my faith. This has allowed me to help other people with questions they have about their faith. I’ve realized you can’t help people who are wrestling with their faith if you have never wrestled with your own.

Tools to Learn

There is no way that I could learn everything necessary to be a pastor in my three short years of seminary. But I did learn how to learn. In those three years I became equipped at using the tools necessary to be a pastor. I know how to study and apply God’s word in a variety of situations and I’ve learned where to go when new questions arise.

Some might ask was Paul simply going with the flow? Was he just giving into peer pressure? Furthermore, Did he leave an example of conformity for Christians after him.

The answer to this question is no. Paul writes that he was aware of his change and lets the reader know that he wasn’t simply acting uncritically. Instead he writes that he was very intentional about how he interacted with other people, many times avoid certain things, and often acting out of a different motivation, than that of those around him.
The more interesting question is: Was Paul faking it? Was he some sort of religious con-man, changing his persona on command to best ensnare his audience? More subtly, some might ask was Paul authentic with people around him?
This questions is particularly interesting when we consider the implications on the Church today, Our society takes authenticity very seriously. Recently this idea of inventing ones personality to win someone over was the recurring joke in an episode NBC’s “30 Rock”. In the show Liz (one of the main characters) opens the mail of her neighbor and copies his interests in order to win his affection. Throughout the episode Liz is chastised for her conniving, and in the end is told by her neighbor that he wished she would had been herself.

I would suggest that Paul is leaving a positive pattern, but that he is not sacrificing authenticity for the sake of accessibility.

So the answer to “how is Paul being Paul if he is constantly changing the way he acts?” lies in how Paul Identifies himself.
Paul says in the letter to the Galatians “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ” Unfortunately, the radical nature of this statement has been diluted. What Paul is saying here is that his identity is directly taken from Christ, where he was once Paul the Hebrew of Hebrews he is now Paul the follower of Christ. Paul is saying here that the things that once defined who he was, have now been superseded. The ideals, preferences and values he once held as primary, have now become subject to the will of Christ, and this is what allows him to act different around different people. Not as con-man or a trickster but as someone who identity had moved beyond tribalism, race or anything else which naturally separates people from each other.

A Change in our Point of Reference
If Paul sees himself as primarily connected to God, than he can appreciate and value all people in a God-like way. He can move past defining himself by his race and upbringing. He can appreciate different food, and music. He can attend events that the Old Paul might have grimaced at, because he can see the image of God in all people.

Are you still defined by your race or culture or upbringing? Rejecting or Resting on any of these ideas still means that they define who you are and who you are not.
Only when we are connected to God can we move past race, culture, and upbringing, to embrace the beauty of all people, because our point of reference is no longer some other group of which we are not a part. If our reference point is God, we can cross those lines of division. We can explore and enjoy many different things.

If our Reference point is God:
we can appreciate the strength and struggle of both, Hip Hop and Blue Grass.
we can see the beauty of Abstract impressionism and Baroque Landscapes.
we can get over ourselves and love and appreciate all kinds of people.

1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
3. Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

Does anyone else think that Mark Driscoll is the last guy not the guy who should speak about Old Calvinism (if there is such a thing), and does anyone else think that after his comments above it seems like he doesn’t really understand Calvinism?

Of course guys who go to his church, or people who are big fans of Driscoll will think Im just another bitter and back biting “Old” Calvinism. Well I’m not, but I do think that its important for people to say “hold up.” On top of it I think the idea of dividing the new and old, Of saying we are not those guys, is divisive and not productive.

I know that historically some of the reformers argued that we should participate in other parts of the christian experience on days other than traditional liturgical days. Butzer argues in De Regno Christi, that we should not fast on Ash Wednesday, but instead have other times of fasting. In their defense, most people don’t want to look like the group that is persecuting you.

To be quite honest I can see both the benefits and dangers of participating in the liturgical calendar in general, and Ash Wednesday in particular.

Around the twittersphere lots of other church-folks have been talking about how or if they are participating in ash Wednesday.

Do you know of any Presbyterian Churches or Reformed Churches, that participate in Ash Wednesday or in the liturgical calendar more specifically?

If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

The thing that is significant is that Paul says he must be grounded, that he should interact with people in a beneficial way. That he should care about how nonchristians see him as a representative of Christ. That he should not be a man of excesses.
What Paul doesn’t say is that he should be a super Christian. That he should or will have to pretend as if he does not struggle with sin(everyone does). Paul doesn’t say that he can never fail(everyone does), that he if he falls into sin that he will never be restored (Peter did and was).

I am not a good person.

Pastors aren’t pastor because they are good people, they are pastors because Jesus saves broken people. They are pastors because Jesus chooses to redeem and to use the redeemed in the process of redemption.

But I thought to myself–did they just say that in the New York Times?!?

The article makes me proud and a bit sad.

At one point Mark, a brother whom I greatly respect, talked about when a “number one” Pastor should step down. His argument, there are some guys who are really, as he puts it, “number two” guys who are in number one positions. He argues that these guys need to step down. According to Mark, pastors who struggle with sermons, who shrug off vision and “architecting”, and whose churches are stagnant are probably number two guys in the number one slot.
Mark advises that they need to step down, and let a real number one step up. It seems like he is arguing that Preaching and vision are things that a number one does, while shepherding and counseling are for the number two.

Let me share what I disagree with, before I move on to what I agree with.
First, Mark often speaks about the problem of simply pulling your church’s structure for culture. In fact he has gone to great pains to show how he is a two office guy, Elders and Deacons. These statements hurt that part of his witness. This idea seems to come more from the corporate world than the New Testament. Putting a value judgment on guys as being primary or secondary is wrong. Its wrong when Presbyterians devalue ruling elders, and its wrong when Mark devalues these number two guys, and it divides the office of elder.

In addition I think its unhealthy to score different aspects of the ministry of an elder. Here is the problem and this might sound mean. Mark has forgotten where these guys are coming from. He points out in Confessions of a Reformission Rev. that most churches are less than 200, which means that most churches only have one guy on staff. Which means that the specialization that Mark is talking about is entirely unknown to most of the guys he is talking to at church planting conferences. Regardless of if these small churches are healthy or not, I think that Doug Swagerty is right when he says that a church is not a fault for being small. In a larger church, with multiple full-time elders (ie. Pastors) it is understandable that different men need to specialize. I think Mark might be setting up for church planters the idea that 2000 plus people should be the norm for a church, when factually this is not the case.

I understand that he was not trying to devalue these specialized pastors who don’t preach, but I think he explained his idea in the wrong way. I also understand that this is a blog, one that very few people read. My critique is probably not going to change the way that Mark talks about this stuff, though it would be nice if it did. I think Mark has to realize that many Pastors are going to be both ones and twos, most of my seminary professors showed the ability to cast vision, to teach, to prophetically call people to follow Christ. At the same time these men, can along side of their students, they encouraged and counseled them. It is not as easy as saying your a one and your a two. I would argue that the majority of good pastors are going to be a mix of both.

Instead of simply speaking of number one preachers and number two counselors, I think Mark should have gone to Scripture to argue for the diversity of gifts on a pastoral team, something that I agree with. As I was listening to his lecture, I immediately went to Acts 11. In Acts 11, Barnabas, is working in the church Antioch, he is preaching, teach, and shepherding this new church. The Spirit is using Barnabas and the result is an explosion in the growth of the church. Barnabas, though he is a gifted speaker, realizes that Paul’s teaching would build up the church so he seeks out Paul, and asks him to join the ministry in Antioch. It seems fair to say that Paul and Barnabas, though sharing many skills, each brought their own talents to the table. From what we gather later in Acts, Paul seems to headline much of the speaking, while even Barnabas’s name reveals his counseling gifts.

I think Mark could, and should say, that if you are a Barnabas, and you see that you need someone else to come and minister with you, you need to find that Paul. Even if it means that visibly your place in the church will decrease.

I don’t think that Mark should presuppose that all churches will reach a point where all their staff can specialize, but I do think that in in the western church, there has been a culture of solo. Even the Presbyterian system, which is still being refined by God’s word, has for too long seen the Teaching Elder as alone in his ministry. In the New Testament, men ministering alone was the exception not the rule. In part, I think what Mark was getting at is the importance of realizing the need to be connected to other men in ministry. This commitment to connection must be valued even if it means that, like Barnabas, one pastor’s role might become less visible.

The challenge is to not setup success as our functional savior. A pastor’s desire must be to see people come to love Jesus, and each other, and not to be know for seeing people come to love Jesus and each other.

Because I believe that God exists I try, emphasis on try, to to live my life in light of his existence. One of the ways which I live out this reality is seen in the fact I have sought to hear his “call” on my life. One might be asking “Does God have to dial 1 before he calls someone.” When I say that good has a calling for my life, I am saying that my life is not a series of meaningless. I don’t need to do achieve some goal or reach some self-actualization in order for my life to be meaningful. Its meaningful because God is the one shaping it.
God calls people in many ways and on different levels. He calls people out of the darkness of sin and selfishness into light of his message of grace and reconciliation. He also calls people in a broader sense.

September 7th will be the culmination of a call that God has placed on me for the last four years. My church even uses the language of call to explain my relationship to the church. Let me take a few sentences to explain what goes into a “call” to pastor a church. 1. I percieved that God was calling me to be a pastor, this wasn’t a 11pm-burrito-audible-voice-of-god call, it was more like a deep desire with to serve people full time. I then shared this with the leaders of my church, who agreed that God might be calling me to full-time ministry. I then worked in a church, two churches actually, to affirm for my self and to others that I had the gifts that were needed for ministry (the qualifications can be found in 1 Tim. 3). After this I went back to the leaders in my church, decided that I should be the assistant pastor at our church. After this I interacted with the leaders of other churches and reaffirmed that I thought God was calling me to be a pastor. After many long and beneficial conversations and examinations, they affirmed that I was being called by God to work at City Reformed.

Most people who know me wouldn’t peg me as the pastor type, but to paraphrase one pastor before me: God uses the foolish and imperfect things of the world to stop anyone from boasting in themselves.

Anyone reading this is invited to attended my ordination service, on September 7th at 2pm.