In gatherer-hunter and farming societies, childhood education involves formal and informal apprenticeship. Children have lots of chances to practice the skills that they need to accomplish their goals as adults, and so to become expert planners and actors. The cultural psychologist Barbara Rogoff studied this kind of informal education in a Guatemalan Indian society, where she found that apprenticeship allowed even young children to become adept at difficult and dangerous tasks like using a machete.

In the past, to become a good gatherer or hunter, cook or caregiver, you would actually practice gathering, hunting, cooking and taking care of children all through middle childhood and early adolescence—tuning up just the prefrontal wiring you’d need as an adult.

The article then pointed out the loss of this way of learning and its impact on society today:

Contemporary children have very little experience with the kinds of tasks that they’ll have to perform as grown-ups. Children have increasingly little chance to practice even basic skills like cooking and caregiving. Contemporary adolescents and pre-adolescents often don’t do much of anything except go to school. Even the paper route and the baby-sitting job have largely disappeared…

Of course, the author is not making the case that children today are less knowledgeable than children in previous generations. The results appear to be just the opposite. Still…

There are different ways of being smart. Knowing physics and chemistry is no help with a soufflé. Wide-ranging, flexible and broad learning, the kind we encourage in high-school and college, may actually be in tension with the ability to develop finely-honed, controlled, focused expertise in a particular skill, the kind of learning that once routinely took place in human societies. For most of our history, children have started their internships when they were seven, not 27.

The author concludes by pleading for the return of apprenticeship as a way of helping teenagers move forward into adulthood.

Instead of simply giving adolescents more and more school experiences—those extra hours of after-school classes and homework—we could try to arrange more opportunities for apprenticeship. AmeriCorps, the federal community-service program for youth, is an excellent example, since it provides both challenging real-life experiences and a degree of protection and supervision.

“Take your child to work” could become a routine practice rather than a single-day annual event, and college students could spend more time watching and helping scientists and scholars at work rather than just listening to their lectures. Summer enrichment activities like camp and travel, now so common for children whose parents have means, might be usefully alternated with summer jobs, with real responsibilities.

Evangelicals are talking a lot today about prolonged adolescence and the problems caused by this new phenomenon. I wonder, though, if the need for apprenticeship goes beyond application to teenagers and speaks to the very nature of discipleship in general.

If knowledge and learning in biblical times took place primarily through the role of teacher and apprentice, then perhaps when the New Testament authors place such a strong priority on teaching, they are not thinking merely in terms of lectures and sermons. Perhaps their vision of teaching also includes the idea of apprenticeship. If so, how should this affect our view of discipleship today?

I’m open to ideas. More on this tomorrow…

• What kind of church is ideal?
• What kind of church should we settle for?
• How long should we wait before joining a church?

I have found the insights of Francis Schaeffer and Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be a helpful resource in advising people who are looking for a church.

1. LOOK FOR AN ORTHODOX CHURCH

Schaeffer focuses on the church being orthodox:

First, there should be an “orthodoxy of doctrine”- that is, it should be Bible-believing in the full sense of the term.

Second, there should be an “orthokardia of community.” This means that people would care for each other in the whole spectrum of life, including financially if this is needed. There should be real community among those in the church and a real sense of the importance of this – rather than the church just being a preaching point or an activity center.

I would add to both of these qualifications an “orthopraxy of mission,” where church leaders emphasize the need for Christians to represent Christ and proclaim the gospel outside the church walls.

After Schaeffer focuses on orthodoxy, he turns to the matter of personal preferences:

Third, after these two points are met, then you must find a church which meets your personal needs. Theoretically all churches should meet all people’s needs, but in a fallen world this is not possible. Some people, for example, like one kind of music and some another; some like one kind of preaching and some another. Some churches meet the needs of certain individuals, but not the needs of others.

2. BE PREPARED FOR AN IMPERFECT CHURCH.

Next, Schaeffer points to the reality that no church is perfect. In fact, he challenges the reader to anticipate imperfection:

When you put the three things together, we must recognize that there is no church in this fallen world which is perfect, and unhappily there are an appreciable number of communities where it is difficult to find any church that meets the three criteria.

Two further things must be said simultaneously: first, we must not accept what is poor; second, however, if we will only accept what is perfect or else nothing at all, we will always get the nothing in this fallen and abnormal world.

That’s where Dietrich Bonhoeffer has something to offer to this discussion. He begins with the love of God for sinful humanity:

God loves human beings. God loves the world. Not an ideal human, but human beings as they are; not an ideal world, but the real world. What we find repulsive in their opposition to God, what we shrink back from with pain and hostility, namely, real human beings, the real world, this is for God the ground of unfathomable love.

This unshakeable, unfathomable love of God for the real world is the basis for Bonhoeffer’s appeal for real people to love real people. That’s why he warns against excessive idealism when considering the church:

The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own laws, and judges the brethren and God himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of the brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together.

When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first an accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.

3. GROW IN GRACE WITH AN IMPERFECT COMMUNITY.

But here is where we need to take a step further. We don’t just settle for an imperfect church. We expect that the imperfect, bungling bunch of believers we’ve united with will become the means by which God sanctifies us.

Bonhoeffer writes about the sanctifying grace that comes from one’s disillusionment with the church:

Will not the very moment of great disillusionment with my brother or sister be incomparably wholesome for me because it so thoroughly teaches me that both of us can never live by our own words and deeds, but only by that one Word and deed that really binds us together, the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ? The bright day of Christian community dawns wherever the early morning mists of dreamy visions are lifting.

Here’s the key to remember: God uses imperfect churches to perfect His children.

Too many people are looking for a church in the abstract rather than the flesh-and-blood people they bump into on the way to the nursery. That’s one reason I devoted an entire chapter to this subject in Counterfeit Gospels:

I remember seeing a Peanuts cartoon in which Linus yells, “I love mankind… it’s people I can’t stand!” G. K. Chesterton said something similar: “I learned with little labor the way to love my fellow-man and hate my next-door neighbor.”

Truth be told, we talk about loving others, but we’re quick to hit the road when loving people gets hard. We’re not called to love an idea, we’re called to love our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Too many people think that the church’s problems are an obstacle to becoming more like Jesus. Actually, the opposite is true: commitment to bear with the church’s problems is the method by which we become more like Christ.

So look for an orthodox church on mission for God’s kingdom. Expect the church to be imperfect. And then watch how God uses that church’s imperfections to sanctify your heart.

* The three “ortho’s” at the beginning of this post were suggested by Michael Bird, who got them from Harry Goodhew, former Anglican bishop of Sydney.

Biographical

Know Your Evangelicals: Francis Schaeffer

Remembering Francis Schaeffer: On the Occasion of His 100th Birthday

Impact

Francis Schaeffer Cried for the Culture 

The Dissatisfaction of Francis Schaeffer

Schaeffer in His Own Words

What Would Francis Schaeffer Say to the Gospel-Centered Movement?

A Christian Can Defeat Himself in Two Ways

On the Need for Divine Power

On the Early Christians’ Exclusive Claims

1. I’m curious.

Sounds crazy, I know. But it’s true. Curiosity is a main reason for wanting to be at the next Elephant Room.

I’m curious to see how these pastors interact with each other behind the scenes and on the platform. I’m curious to see how they respond to the questions presented in each session. I’m curious to see how united they really are on the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity. I’m curious to see if the conversations will be more substantive than those of the first Elephant Room. I’m curious to see if the organizers of the event will address some of the controversy over their choices.

I hope my sense of curiosity will serve me well as I put on my journalist cap and attend this conference and then provide analysis and assessment.

2. I’m concerned.

Another reason I’m going is that I’m concerned about a number of issues related to the Elephant Room.

I’m concerned that it may be further widening the gap between theology and methodology. I’m concerned that the personality-driven nature of the event distracts from the substantive issues at stake in these discussions.

I’m most concerned about the significance of James MacDonald’s invitation to T. D. Jakes when Jakes’ explanations of his view on the Trinity have been muddled at best and heretical at worst. I’m concerned that in the midst of all the furor surrounding the Jakes invitation, I get the sense that some critics actually want Jakes to turn out to be a heretic so that this whole conference can be dismissed, along with Jakes himself. At the same time, I’m concerned that Jakes will say something that sounds Trinitarian, refuse to repudiate the Oneness view, and thus leave us with a weak explanation rather than a robust defense of the historic Christian position. I’m concerned that even if the discussion on the Trinity goes well, the prosperity teachings of Jakes will be legitimized rather than challenged.

I have other concerns as well, some of which are described in my post from yesterday.

3. I’m confident.

The third reason I’m attending the Elephant Room is that I’m confident God is going to bring about something good from this event. I’m confident that the organizers of this event love Jesus and want to see Him exalted. I’m confident that I will be stretched and challenged. I’m confident that I have the freedom to offer an honest analysis of the event on this blog. Above all, I’m confident in the unstoppable power of the true gospel.

So in a nutshell, those are the three reasons I have chosen to attend and blog about the Elephant Room.

I have decided to attend the upcoming Elephant Room conference on January 25, 2012, and then blog about the event. I will explain my reasons for accepting the invitation in a post tomorrow. But before considering the upcoming conference, I think it would be good to offer a few reflections about the first Elephant Room meeting. The conference took place on March 31, 2011, and featured eight conversations between seven pastors. (I collected some blog notes from each session here as well as various clips at the Elephant Room website and here.)

Debates and discussions have long had a place in the evangelical conversation, but the Elephant Room is different. Why? Because it captures so well the ethos of contemporary evangelicalism – for good and for ill. Here’s what I mean…

1. Evangelicals continue to affirm that the Scriptures are authoritative for church life and practice.

One of David Bebbington’s four characteristics of the evangelical movement is that we have a high regard for the authority of Scripture. This means that evangelicals seek to apply the authority of Scripture to all areas of church life and practice.

In the first Elephant Room, everyone at the table was united by the belief that when it comes to ministry practice, what the Bible says is most important. This is why, at the end of the day, evangelicals are unique in having these types of discussions. Many church leaders would shrug their shoulders at this event, having already dismissed the absolute authority of Scripture for all aspects of church life. Fundamentalists would avoid these conversations because their understanding of Scriptural authority would preclude them from associating with those who interpret the Scriptures in ways that lead to, in their view, aberrant ministry practices. The Elephant Room debates, however, make no sense apart from the underlying assumption that the Bible is the supreme authority for what we believe and what we practice.

You may be thinking, If evangelicals can and do have these discussions, what is unique about the Elephant Room? The simple answer is the face-to-face interaction. Whereas the leaders of different tribes within evangelicalism tend to talk at one another, it is rare to see leaders sitting down to talk and listen to one another. That brings us to the second snapshot.

2. Evangelicalism is not a tribe but a reservation where many tribes live.

A key assumption of the first Elephant Room is that tribalism is inevitable but not totally justifiable. In other words, it is normal for evangelicals to divide up into networks and tribes but unhealthy for our divisions to solidify to the point we no longer recognize other brothers and sisters who live on the same reservation (i.e., in agreement with the supreme authority of Scripture).

MacDonald uses the image of a family, a loud and opinionated group of people whose fierce arguments with one another are matched only by their fierce love and loyalty to one another. MacDonald believes that robust debate is healthy for brothers. Of course, the emphasis on brotherhood was the main reason why the upcoming Elephant Room became so controversial: MacDonald invited T. D. Jakes, a pastor who was raised as part of a denomination that denies the Trinity. I’ll address the Jakes issue tomorrow.

But for now, let me say in regard to the first Elephant Room that I appreciate James MacDonald’s willingness to host conversations with brothers who do things differently than he does. Contrary to what many think, the ability to sit down with believers from “outside your tribe” is not a sign of theological wobbliness but of steadfast conviction. It means you are firm enough in what you believe to be able to listen charitably to other points of view, even if you choose not to adopt those viewpoints.

3. Evangelical identity is contested, which leads to questions of association.

As a movement, evangelicalism is fragmenting. The notion of evangelical identity is contested and debated in books, blogs, and conferences. Many hope for a renewal of evangelicalism but disagree as to how to bring about that renewal.

1. One approach to renewing evangelical identity is that we embrace the diversity of theological options as part of the definition of being evangelical. This is the direction that leaders like Roger Olson would take us.
2. A second approach seeks to reclaim the center of evangelicalism (the gospel) by maintaining adherence to a core of theological convictions. The Gospel Coalition would be an example of “reclaiming the center.”
3. A third approach is to take prominent evangelical pastors with different philosophies of ministry and bring them together for conversation about their different methodologies. I place the Elephant Room in this category (and perhaps Catalyst and the Willow Creek Leadership Summit).

The Elephant Room approach differs from the first because it does not revel in diversity as being good in and of itself. Instead, the whole tenor of the discussion is that diversity should not be celebrated but challenged in light of the Scriptures.

This approach differs from the second by significantly broadening the core of what theological convictions and ministry practices must be held in common. Whereas the second approach takes pastoral associations very seriously, the third approach is less concerned with confessional identity and chooses instead to bring together pastors on the basis of a common commitment to the authority of the Bible, regardless of their methodological decisions.

What makes the Elephant Room interesting is that James MacDonald and other participants are official members of an organization that takes the “reclaim the center” confessional approach, even though the Elephant Room intends to influence a much wider swath of evangelicals. (This becomes even more clear when we consider the invitations for Elephant Room 2.) What does this mean? Put simply, options 1-3 are not necessarily incompatible options for renewal (though it’s rare to find people who agree with both 1 and 2). Participation in any of the three does not necessarily preclude participation in the others.

4. Evangelicals continue to unite around big personalities.

The proto-evangelicals of the Reformation and the Great Awakenings were attracted to big personalities. Just think of Luther, Whitefield, Wesley, and Spurgeon. The development of contemporary evangelicalism took place around key leaders like Billy Graham. Today, the Elephant Room reinforces the evangelical fascination with “big personality” preachers and teachers.

It’s interesting to note that one of the commonalities that united the pastors who participated in the first Elephant Room was that they all lead beyond their local churches. Each of them wields influence in movements that transcend their church contexts. Perhaps much of the camaraderie of the Elephant Room is based not in theological likemindedness but in a sort of “brotherhood of the trenches” – the ability to relate to one another and show the scars of being in leadership.

Have you ever noticed how former presidents (generally) refrain from attacking their successors and how presidents with radically different political views can be on such good terms once they are out of office? There is a bond among former presidents, perhaps because each of them knows firsthand the stress of being president. I wonder if the pastors who participate in the Elephant Room have a similar bond. They know what it is like to be shot at from all sides. (As an example, watch the reaction when Perry Noble mentions “internet bloggers,” and you see how quickly everyone is on the same page!)

The downside to this emphasis on big personalities was that the debates often steered toward entertaining conversation rather than substantive discussion. For example, David Platt laid out a view of money and possessions that James MacDonald affirmed. But then the conversation quickly turned to the soundbite issue of “giving kids goldfish crackers in church.” No longer was the conversation about the substance of Platt’s view but a caricature of his position. (My frustration with that segment led to this blog post.)

The same thing took place with the discussion on culture in the church. Driscoll and Noble were set opposite one another when it was clear that both are more alike than different on the issue of culture. And so the soundbite issue of using “Highway to Hell” in worship – an issue that illustrates the difference between ministry philosophies – took over the conversation.

5. Evangelicalism’s lack of ecclesiology leads to a divorce between theology and methodology.

When I watched the Elephant Room with church leaders, I was sharpened by the terrific conversations that followed. The videos were a springboard into discussions that pushed us to consider, in light of the Scriptures, why we do things the way we do them. What is the ministry philosophy that undergirds our methods?

The Elephant Room also made it harder to easily dismiss pastors who do not belong to our particular tribe. While no one changed their mind regarding ministry philosophy, everyone went away with new insight into the motivation behind the other approaches, even if they ultimately disagreed with those pastors’ choices. The Elephant Room took away some of our easy targets.

Watching the Elephant Room with laypeople was another experience entirely. Whereas church leaders took these debates as a springboard for robust conversation about ministry practice, church laypeople tended to relativize the discussion and see all methods as essentially equal, just different. I noticed that among laypeople, the Elephant Room discussions wound up legitimizing all the ministry philosophies represented, to the point that it didn’t matter what the choices were as long as the pastor’s heart was in the right place.

Frankly, I was surprised by this reaction to the Elephant Room, since the whole tenor of the discussion seemed to be these differences matter! So, I think the Elephant Room exposes a glaring weakness of evangelicalism in general, that our lack of ecclesiology leaves the door open for a total divorce between theology and ministry methodology. Instead of tracing the different methodologies back to the theology that gives rise to such distinctions, the Elephant Room makes it seem as if the theological core is sound and that the big issues relate to practice.

But if theology influences everything a church does, then there must be a stronger connection between theology and practice, between ecclesiology and ministry. It’s not that David Platt and Perry Noble disagree on practice alone; their theological convictions are what lead to differences in practice.

Conclusion

Too many times, when we disagree with a pastor’s actions, we judge his motives. We assume that brothers operating by a different philosophy of ministry must be motivated by numbers, by glory-seeking, or by theological ignorance. And while it is true that all of our hearts contain a mixture of conflicting motives – some pure and others sinful – we should assume the worst about ourselves and the best about our brothers. This is the strength of the Elephant Room. Listening to people from outside our own tribe should give us pause before launching into critique.

At the same time, assuming sincerity of heart and love for Jesus on the part of other church leaders does not mean that different ministry philosophies and methodologies are equally valid. At the end of the day, our faithfulness and service to the Lord will not be examined in light of our devotion to dynamic preacher personalities but by the actions we take in light of God’s revealed Word. Ideas have consequences. Ministry philosophy matters. People get hurt by bad theology and unwise practices.

So yes, theological humility reminds us that we do not have all the answers. But theological conviction reminds us that there is right and wrong, there are choices that are either wise or unwise, and that the Scriptures must guide how we think through these issues.

Tomorrow, I’ll offer a few reasons why I will be attending and blogging about the upcoming Elephant Room conference.

I love listening to pastors who exalt Christ everywhere they can as they proclaim the Scriptures. Christ-centeredness is one of the core values we are seeking to implement in The Gospel Project. (For more information, check out the website we launched late last week.)

To be clear, I am not one who believes Sunday School is the only method that pastors and church leaders should consider. But too many times, I’ve seen this method belittled and dismissed without any serious consideration of its possibilities. On the other hand, I’ve seen lots of pastors and church leaders who inherited a Sunday School model but don’t know how to maximize its potential. Though Jonathan and I have differing views as to the best way to do Sunday School, both of us agree that this tool holds promise for the church that uses it well.

From the introduction:

Churches kick adult Sunday school to the curb for a host of reasons: they don’t have enough teachers; they don’t want to burden Sunday schedules; they believe it’s a relic of the past.

Basically, adult Sunday school is a dinosaur, right? That’s why young churches often don’t have them, and mature churches let them carry on as they’ve always done.

You file into the “Fa-Ho-Lo” class (faith, hope, love) that you’ve been attending for years. You chat with friends about Saturday’s college games for 10 minutes over a cup of Folgers finest. The leader calls for prayer requests and updates. That’s another 15 minutes. Then come the 35 desultory minutes of the study itself, which breaks down into 25% instruction, 25% marginally helpful remarks by classmates, and 50% rambling by two particular classmates.

If this is your experience with Sunday school, like you we’re tempted to kick the whole affair to the curb.

But wait! Do you know what you might be missing? What if we could use it to pack gospel-centered biblical content into our congregations? And equip the saints for the work of ministry? And change our church cultures in everything from dating, to evangelism, to knowing God’s will?

If we content ourselves with a 45 minute Sunday sermon for instructing the saints, we’re letting the Friday night movie beat out our time investment into them by double.

That’s why the two of us want to push the retro envelope and encourage you to reclaim adult Sunday school. If you don’t have it, get it. If you have it, consider how you might make more of it. In the immortal words of Huey Lewis, it’s hip to be square.

The two of us have slightly different ideas about how to structure a Sunday school program. Trevin wants to cycle good material through fixed classes. Jonathan wants to cycle people through good classes. But the big point of agreement is this: don’t be afraid to teach. And teach comprehensively and systematically. That’s our challenge to you.

Jonathan Pennington starts us off with a Sunday school apologetic. Ed Stetzer offers an interesting historical perspective. And Jamie Dunlop and Trevin consider several different advantages of holding adult Sunday school classes. Garrett Kell and Juan Sanchez get into the nuts and bolts of reform, and Jonathan, Jamie Dunlop, Michael Kelley, and Bobby Jamieson get specific about strategies for Sunday school. If you only have time for one article, jump straight to Jamie Dunlop’s on changing a church’s culture.

Bottom line, we invite you to consider what you might be missing.

Reclaiming Sunday School

• Why You Want Sunday School – Jonathan Pennington and Bobby Jamieson
• Why Sunday School Lost Its Edge – Ed Stetzer
• Sunday School and Its Rivals – Trevin Wax
• How Sunday School Can Change Your Church’s Culture – Jamie Dunlop
• How Sunday School Can Help Your Preaching – Jamie Dunlop

Reforming Sunday School

• Not Your Grandma’s Sunday School - Garrett Kell
• How to Reform a Sunday School Program – Juan Sanchez

How to Do Sunday School

• Whatever the Model, Don’t Be Afraid to Teach – Jonathan Leeman
• 5 Things Every Group Leader Should Do – Michael Kelley
• Sunday School for Dummies: How to Use and Develop New Teachers – Jamie Dunlop
• The Advantages of Curriculum – Bobby Jamieson

There’s no doubt that certain pastors have attained a kind of “celebrity.” And yet we are wrong to assume that this has happened because these pastors have intentionally sought notoriety and fame. It’s one thing to say that we may have a problem here. It’s another thing to start blaming people left and right for it. (Furthermore, I find it ironic that many of the pastors and bloggers who condemn the celebrity culture could be considered “celebrities” themselves, albeit of the curmudgeonly variety!)

All that said, in a recent conversation with Robert George, Russ Moore described a recent shift in how students speak of pastoral influence. Here’s what he had to say:

When I am talking to young evangelicals, often who are in ministry, and I say, “Who has been really influential upon you in ministry and on learning to preach and to do the things of ministry?” ten years ago, most people would have given me the name of a local pastor who had mentored them and worked with them. Now they are mentioning a disembodied voice that they have heard on a podcast. That’s a very dangerous thing…

… We’ll just become this amorphous, non-ecclesial movement where everybody is just concerned about individual flights to heaven and move from church to church to church based upon what the music is like or what the preaching is like and then become identified with these celebrities…celebrity preachers. One of the things that we have happening in evangelicalism right now is this rash of preachers who are leaving their churches in order to expand their ministries, and what they mean by that is to go on the conference circuit and simply become these itinerate type of celebrities. That’s a very dangerous thing in evangelicalism, and unless you’ve got a renewal at the local church level where people really are accountable to people they know, evangelicalism is not going to survive.

Dr. Moore’s anecdotal evidence is distressing. To be sure, I’m thankful for the opportunity to glean biblical insights from the podcasts available from many popular pastors today. I’m also thankful to be able to read sermons from pastors throughout church history. (Chrysostom and Spurgeon are two of my favorites.)

And yet the popular preachers of this year or yesteryear are not the pastors who have influenced me most. It could be that my preaching is influenced by the preaching I listen to or the sermons I read, but a preacher on a podcast is not a pastor to me.

The Perfect Storm

I worry that two weather systems have formed and are coming together in a way that might harm the church. The first weather system is a drought caused by the fatherlessness of our current society. People are looking for fathers and their influence.

The second weather system is the heavy rain of pastoral resources available through technological advance. People can easily access terrific sermon content from especially gifted pastors.

Put drought conditions and heavy rain together, and we have a potential flood situation. Pastors and preachers whose messages connect with our generation are filling the fatherless void but in a way that leads to a distortion of what pastoral influence and fatherhood is supposed to be.

I remember reading Collin Hansen’s book on the “young, restless, and reformed” a few years ago and being disturbed by one woman’s description of John Piper as a “father” of sorts, even though they’d never met. Fathers image God. The fact that a young lady could express the concept of spiritual fatherhood in relation to Piper shows what her view of God the Father is. Far off. Transcendent. Powerful. Distant. If fatherhood can take place without ever meeting, then we must have missed something about the immanence of God that expresses itself in God’s condescension to us in Christ.

Let me reiterate that I’m not faulting John Piper or any other popular pastor for this development. It must be said that much pastoral “fame” is simply the accumulation of honor for a pastor who has proven faithful to God’s call over time.

But just because we cannot and should not point fingers at each other regarding the problem of celebrity does not mean that we shouldn’t carefully consider the ramifications of pastoral influence being mediated through technology instead of the local church. I offer these thoughts not as a point of criticism but as one of concern. And I’m open to suggestions as to how to lift up local church pastors and celebrate their influence and mentoring.

John Piper was right to remind us that we are not pastored by “professionals.” Perhaps it’s time we remembered that we are not pastored by podcasts either.

OK, I admit to indulging in a bit of overstatement to shock you into recognizing what should be obvious: just because you know the Bible doesn’t mean the Word will bear fruit in your life. It is possible to know the Scriptures, read the Scriptures, revere the Scriptures, and study the Scriptures and miss the point entirely.

Take the liberal scholar who knows the Greek New Testament better than most orthodox pastors. He can quote whole sections of the Bible in its original languages. Definitions of biblical words tumble out of his mouth as he effortlessly places everything in historical context. And yet he does not believe in the Jesus he reads about in the pages of the Bible. Sure, he is endlessly fascinated by the communities that gave us such an interesting artifact of study. But to him, his job is to immerse himself into a world of fables and dreams. The Bible is an epic story with no bearing on reality today.

Or take the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day who were steeped in the rich traditions of their people’s history. The leaders knew the Scriptures backwards and forwards, yet they had missed the signs pointing to the most important chapter in the Story that God was writing – the chapter that had been foreshadowed by the prophets and Bible writers for thousands of years. That’s why Jesus could say: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me that you may have life!” (John 5:39-40). He doesn’t condemn them for their meticulous knowledge of the Old Testament. He mourns the fact that they’ve missed the point of it all.

Even today, it’s possible to get so wrapped up in searching the Scriptures that we miss what God is trying to teach us. Consider would-be prophets who scour over the prophecies of Revelation trying to pull out clues and codes about the European Union or the next major ecological catastrophe. Caught up in the thrill, the writers lose sight of Revelation’s main purpose: to unveil Jesus!

Others get bogged down in theological discussions (Calvinism vs. Arminianism, anyone?) until they eventually start coming to the Scriptures to look for more ammunition for their next debate. The Bible quietly gets twisted into a divine reference book designed to uphold a beloved system of theology instead of God’s divine revelation designed to shine light on a glorious Savior.

And then there’s the common type of Bible study that begins with us at the center and brings God into our world to address our already-defined needs and problems. We look at the Bible as a book of divine instruction, a manual for succeeding in life, or a map for making sure we get to heaven when we die.

These ways of studying the Scripture will not result in life transformation. Why? Because they’re missing something. Better put, they’re missing Someone. 

Bible study alone is not what transforms your life. Jesus transforms your life. Of course, He does this through His written Word to us. So we must affirm that life change doesn’t happen apart from God’s Word. But the reason God’s Word changes our life is not because of our personal study but because in the Scriptures we are introduced to Jesus, the Author. That’s why every page ought to be written in red, as every section is breathed out by our King and points us to Him.

It’s possible to amass great amounts of biblical knowledge, to impress people with your mastery of Bible trivia, to creatively apply the Bible in ways that seem so down to earth and practical, to dot your theological i’s and cross your exegetical t’s – and still miss Jesus. Scary, isn’t it?

That’s why it’s not enough to be “Bible-believing” or “Word-centered,” because, after all, the Bible we believe and the Word we proclaim is itself Christ-centered.

The purpose of our Bible study is to know God and make Him known. The Bible unveils Jesus Christ as the focal point of human history. All creation exists by Him, through Him, to Him, and for Him. Our Bible study should exist for Him too. That’s the only kind of Bible study that will change your life.

Letters of Francis Schaeffer, 

With this in mind, I have selected some favorite excerpts from these letters and woven them together creatively. Using Schaeffer’s own words, I am imagining out loud what counsel he might give us today.

What Francis Schaeffer Might Say to the Gospel-Centered Movement Today

1. Make sure your loyalty to Christ supersedes any loyalty you have for the “movement.”

[Brothers and sisters,] I see the need for Christians across the face of the earth who are indeed brothers in Christ, standing on the fundamentals of the faith and separated from unbelief, to come into personal fellowship one with the other to the praise of our Lord. And yet how quickly such a thing can grow into that which is merely cold, formal, and dead. The cry of my heart is that God may have mercy on us.

I increasingly see the dangers involved in organization, and I do think that most of us get the cart before the horse. That is, we organize first and then go forward, rather than growing close to one another through spiritual and personal contacts and then letting whatever organization grow naturally out of that-as the tree puts forth the leaf and then the bud and then the flower as the Lord leads.

I don’t think [that the deeper spiritual walk is] in antithesis to an organization. And yet, I must say that it does seem to me that so often organization becomes a means to an end in itself. So often it takes so much energy to turn over all the machinery that the work never gets finished. And so often we put the machinery in the place of the Holy Spirit, feeling that if we can just get organized enough then the thing is sure to go on and be successful.

Of course, this is all very wrong, and not only wrong but wicked. We must realize that it is only the Holy Spirit who can give the power, and we must realize that the only motivation which pleases our dear Lord is our love for Him. Merely keeping machinery turning, and getting all mixed up in the self-aggrandizement that so often goes with a large organization, completely casts aside this primary motive of love to the Lord and a dependence then on the one source of true Christian power-the Holy Spirit.

The problem is not one of loyalty or lack of loyalty to a “cause” or “movement.” [The problem is that] loyalty to organizations and movements have always tended over time to take the place of loyalty to the person of Christ… We must urge each other not even to give final authority to principles about Christ, but only to the person of Christ.

2. Don’t let your orthodox doctrine be disconnected from a living relationship with the living Christ.

Doctrinal rightness and rightness of ecclesiastical position are important, but only as a starting-point to go on into a living relationship – and not as ends in themselves.

[Take the Reformation, for example.] The Roman Catholic Church had come to teach the wrong doctrines. And I feel that most of the Reformation then let the pendulum swing and thought if only the right doctrines were taught that all would be automatically well. Thus, to a large extent, the Reformation concentrated almost exclusively on the “teaching ministry of the Church.”

In other words almost all the emphasis was placed on teaching the right doctrines. In this I feel the fatal error had already been made. It is not for a moment that we can begin to get anywhere until the right doctrines are taught. But the right doctrines mentally assented to are not an end in themselves, but should only be the vestibule to a personal and loving communion with God.

The danger of orthodoxy, even true orthodoxy, is in falling off the other side of the knife blade: that is, in stating the intellectual position and then placing a period. What we must ask the Lord for is a work of the Spirit . . . to stand on a very thin line: in other words, to state intellectually (as well as understand, though not completely) the intellectual reality of that which God is and what God has revealed in the objectively inspired Bible; and then to live moment by moment in the reality of a restored relationship with the God who is there, and to act in faith upon what we believe in our daily lives.

3. Live in a way that demonstrates the holiness and love of God.

We must exhibit simultaneously the holiness of God and the love of God. Anything else than this simultaneous exhibition presents a caricature of our God to the world rather than showing him forth.

We are in a day when evangelicals tend to let down the absolutes in the Word of God in doctrine and in life, and we must be careful not to contribute to this. On the other hand, we are in a day when other evangelicals are becoming more and more heartless, and we must be careful not to contribute to this as well.

The problem is in being those who insist upon the absolutes of God and yet show forth beauty to the world, which is strangling for the need of both absolutes and beauty. These things are beyond us in our own strength, but not in His strength as we allow Him to bring forth His fruits through us in this sinful and ugly world and generation.

May the Lord lead you that you not deny His existence through lack of faith, nor deny His character in either His holiness or His love.

4. Rely on the Spirit as you grow in your love for God.

[Remember that] the decisions of a growing work demand that the One who directs be constantly at hand.

It brings me increasingly to my knees – to ask that the Holy Spirit may have His way in my life; that I may not think just of justification and then the glories of Heaven (with merely a battle for separation between). [But that I may also think of] all the wonders of the present aspect of my salvation, and that they may be real to me in my life and ministry.

What a wonderful Lord we have, and how glorious it is to indeed have God as our Father, and to be united with Christ, and to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Oh, would to God that our ministry could be under His full direction, and in His power without reservation.

God really is there. He really does exist, and He made us for Himself. Knowing that He is there, and therefore that we do not live in a silent universe, changes everything. To know that we can speak and that there is Someone who will answer fills the vacuum of life that would otherwise be present. And then, when we realize His love for us as individuals – that Christ really did die for us as individuals, for us personally – life is entirely different.

You need not be afraid to enjoy God. The beautiful thing is that He uses us, but never in the way a soldier would use a gun only to throw it down and take another. He uses us, but He always fulfills us at the same time.