Hello Beloved:
A couple of years ago, when I first opened my new copy of Dave Harvey’s Missiology: Entering the Field of the Lord, I had to look up the word missiology, because (a) I, Protestant Knight, am not as think as you smart I am and (b) Harvey does not give a paragraph or one sentence toward a simple definition of missiology; not even a quick one that can he can launch from in the booklet’s opening pages. He at least did readers this courtesy in the first paragraph of his booklet, Polity, by explaining polity’s meaning and its Greek roots. Missiology is not so new a word to come onto the scene to warrant this; it landed onto the vocabulary landscape sometime in the early 1920’s, according to dictionary.com.
Instead, Harvey spends forty-six pages defining mis·si·ol·o·gy, or, the study of how missions are carried out according to Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). Yes, I know, I am stating the obvious: If someone has a booklet titled Missiology, there’s a good chance that expounding on missiology between the covers will take place. My whole point is that this particular subject is one that Harvey wants SGM to own right out of the gate. As we will see throughout this series, it starts off with a type of gee-whiz bewilderment that turns into a not-so-humble orthodoxy toward the end.
“Aw, c’mon PK, are you gonna pick on Dave Harvey again?”
No, just a few of Dave’s statements and conclusions in Missiology.
I believe it would be of particular value if we filtered SGM’s missiology through the strainer of some of the big brains who sit outside -and at times even close to- our camp at SGM. Yes, Harvey’s Missiology details the missionary vision according to SGM, but in following the example of Paul telling the church at Thessalonica to ”examine everything carefully” and “hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), we must go forward with study while Scripture is firmly in hand and view.
After a recent re-read of our Missiology, I am seeing an umbilical cord between our missiology and polity practices at SGM, as to me they seem to inform each other equally. This makes missiology a topic of enormous importance concerning the purity of the church. Some would make the argument that these two should inform each other equally. Whatever the actual extent of the connection, of particular concern to me is that an infection (sin) in one can spread to the other.
So, at the beginning of Missiology, since Harvey isn’t quoting a dictionary or thesaurus or Greek lexicon or etymological word finder in regard to the word missiology, how does he in fact begin? Missiology starts with a not-so-subtle cautionary tale as Harvey tells a story about getting lost on his way to a church in a nearby town (Harvey, Missiology, 1). Remember, this anecdote is coming from a man who all but refuses to listen to “anecdotal” war stories regarding polity; that is, he has a particular distaste for cautionary tales -even if they are true- that warn of the abuses of those hijacking the authority and title of the apostles (Harvey, Polity, 21). My whole point is this: Harvey is not afraid to use anecdotes to further his point, or condemn anecdotes when they deter his point. This makes for a whimsical defense and offense that come off as Harvey being self-serving, i.e. he can use anecdotes, but the rest of the population of earth can’t. If this was not his intention, my only advice for him is to stop it. I personally have never been anti-anecdote as long as a scriptural basis informs it throughout, but Dave, don’t condemn a writing technique that you wish to employ before or after your own condemnation of it!
A BRIEF SIDENOTE: DOES PROTESTANT KNIGHT HAVE AN AXE TO GRIND WITH DAVE HARVEY? No. I have never met Dave Harvey, so I cannot comment on him personally, nor would it serve any purpose to do so on this website or in any other fashion, period. What I can do is make an assessment of what Dave has said or written based on audio messages, outlines, booklets, books and articles he has produced. While I do employ sarcasm from time to time, it is no different than the sarcasm employed by pastors -within and without SGM- on a regular basis to further a point or to illustrate things ranging from silliness to heresy. If you have a problem with sarcasm, you have a problem with men like the prophet Elijah and the apostle Paul. Dave Harvey happens to be in the crosshairs on my last two series because he is the author several of the SGM Perspectives booklets I am reviewing. These booklets are held up in high regard within SGM churches, and are handed to anyone asking about the subjects with which they deal.
In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984), Professor Arthur F. Glasser attempted not so much to define what he believes missiology should be as he does documenting what it has been and what five ”Major Issues” have surrounded it and shaped it over the last two millennia and beyond: (1) Apostolic Practice, (2) Church Structure and Mission, (3) The Gospel and the Religions, (4) Salvation and Non-Christians, and (5) Christianity and Culture. (Elwell, 725)
I think this would be a good template in guiding our series on this subject, which launches us immediately into topic number one: Apostolic Practice. Glasser’s entry on missiology briefly elaborates on this subject that provides a solid framing in our approach:
Apostolic Practice. How is the apostolicity of the church to be expressed if it is conceived as embracing the evangelistic practice of the apostles as well as their “received” teaching? What is the church’s collective responsibility touching the sending forth of laborers to “bring about the obedience of faith…among all the nations” (Romans 1:5)? (Elwell, 725)
So what does Harvey have to say about the “apostolicity” of the church? A lot. We barely get through page four of Harvey’s booklet when he makes a particular item bluntly clear:
Early in the history of this ministry [Sovereign Grace Ministries] it became apparent that the churches needed to be linked by more than a name and an essentially common vision. A leadership team of gifted and proven leaders was formed and given a dual responsibility: serving the local churches and establishing strategies for future missions direction. (When referring to the overall ministry, “leadership team” is for us synonymous with “apostolic team,” a phrase defined in the following pages.) (Harvey, Missiology, 4; emphasis in bold mine)
So whatever name change takes place with the apostolic/leadership/whatever team, it’s still synonymous with “business as usual.”
Being that the above statement alone is worth chewing on for awhile, we’ll take a brief break here for comments, Beloved. For further discussion about the office of “apostle,” click on this link. Next time we’ll discuss Harvey’s assertions on the apostles serving-and-caring-and-caring-and-serving and how this all fits into the work of missions.
In the meantime, remain in the grip of His grace. Test all things! Hold fast to that which is good!
…pk
——————–
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Elwell, Walter A. (Editor). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1984.
Harvey, Dave. Missiology: Entering the Field of the Lord (Number 4 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2006.
Harvey, Dave. Polity: Serving and Leading in the Local Church (Number 2 of the Sovereign Grace Perspectives Series). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 2004.
“missiology.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 29 Sep. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/missiology>.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:15 pm
PK,
Thanks so much for diving into this topic. IMHO, missions is the life-blood of the Church, and we screw it up at our peril. As Piper has said, when it comes to missions, either you are a goer, a sender, or you are being disobedient. Sadly, I think SGM is neither sending nor going…
I think the quote from Harvey that you highlight at the end of the post speaks volumes. Just like on the issue of Polity, SGM is entirely pastor focused and pastor driven. It is this glorification of men, and the false dichotomy of clergy and laymen, that cripples them in missions. A few men cannot possibly do it all, and being man-centered tends to produce activities that exalt men. Their “missions” activities are almost entirely limited to providing “apostolic care” to previously established foreign churches. That ain’t missions! That’s extending individual ministries to non-English speakers. To borrow Jabez-ish language, it’s enlargening CJ’s territory. To cite Piper again, missions is taking the Gospel where it hasn’t gone before.
I think a personal experience is illustrative of this problem…All throughout my time at SGM, I would express my desire to my senior pastor to be a missionary. This was summarily discouraged, and I was redirected to pastoral ministry. This eventually culminated in my acquiescing to a pastoral internship. In part, the justification I was given was the “inherent evils of para-church organizations”, but mostly “apostolic”/pastoral ministry was held up as the only legitimate way to do missions. So, in short, paid, staff elders are the only people who can teach, preach, make decisions, administrate, AND do missions. Whatever happened to the ol’ five-fold ministry?
So, to sum up my rant, I agree PK…polity and missiology are quite inter-linked
October 1st, 2008 at 6:02 pm
exintern:
Thank you for your encouragement! I knew this series would be near and dear to your heart.
A heart for world missions is a recent thing with me, but it’s not the only reason -obviously- I am writing about missiology.
I had a discussion with a friend today about missions, and we talked about one of your points: bringing established churches into the fold is adoption, and not missions.
If there are aspects of a church that want to implement SGM’s umbrella, that’s fine. There are many aspects of SGM I love dearly, but people are at the top of that list. I find myself troubled at calling it missiology when Harvey’s booklet is essentially the basics of church planting.
Thanks again for the kind words.
…pk
October 1st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
BTW everyone, I am trying for shorter, more frequent posts as opposed to the epic-length, less frequent posts of yesterweek. We’re still experimenting here, so we’ll see what happens. keep us in your prayers.
…pk
October 1st, 2008 at 7:42 pm
PK,
Well, as you said, this is definitely near and dear to my heart…definitely worth procrastinating my homework to let you guys know how much I appreciate your efforts
BTW, for anyone interested, I think the single best book ever written on missiology (and I’ve read my share) is John Piper’s “Let the Nations Be Glad”. Coincidentally, it is also the only Piper book I have never seen at an SGM church bookstore…
October 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Below is a link to John Piper’s message on missions given at Celebration 1999. It inspired many of us to ask SGM leaders about taking up the cause of pioneering missions. There was no public response from SGM leaders as far as I remember, only silence. They talked to questioners in private.
http://www.desiringgod.org/Res.....870/Audio/
Listen at your own risk. It will hit you hard!
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 am
ex-so good to see you again. I’d really love to see you let it rip re mission vs SGM missiology.
Are you watching the Sarasota circus?
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 am
PK-brilliant, as always.
Please never apologize for sarcasm.
None of us will ever be as sarcastic as Paul.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Quote ”
I *have* met him up close and personally. He was our former senior pastor and directly responsible for much of what happened to us.
Strangely enough, I also know him outside the realm of the church.
Personally, he’s nice enough. I am biting my tongue here. His kids are nice; brainwashed, but nice. Deleting some stuff. Again, I am biting my tongue because I really must separate the private Dave Harvey from the very public one.
As a pastor, he’s a bit rigid and dictatorial. He is also a bit pompous and, ahem, long-winded as a preacher. I was at a wedding in which he gave the sermon (yes, a sermon,) in which two members of the bridal party actually passed out as a direct result of the man going on ad tedium.
Now, for the meat….
Quote, “In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984), Professor Arthur F. Glasser attempted not so much to define what he believes missiology should be as he does documenting what it has been and what five ”Major Issues” have surrounded it shaped it over the last two millennia and beyond: (1) Apostolic Practice, (2) Church Structure and Mission, (3) The Gospel and the Religions, (4) Salvation and Non-Christians, and (5) Christianity and Culture. (Elwell, 725)”
Folks, should we be quoting as an authoritative source someone who mentions salvation and non-Christians as number four in a list of major issues of “missiology?”
Tucked in-between religions and culture?
I should think “Apostolic practice” would fade into the background with respect to reaching the lost (at least for a Christian addressing missions.) Church structure, are you kidding me? I don’t give a rat’s ass about church structure when you are focusing my mind on lost souls. The Gospel and the Religions? and Christianity and Culture? within the context of the non-Christian, but the very purpose of going somewhere with the Gospel seems to be hidden beneath layers of theological and administrative fat.
All I can say is I would be loathe to be compelled to read these books no matter how slim they may appear.
I’m sort of a simple soul, I want to live a life that doesn’t shame the Gospel so that I may be able to share Jesus with someone (hopefully plural someones,) without any of my theological or cultural baggage.
And I really must thank Dave for broadening my vocabulary with, “Polity,” and “Missiology,” not that I have much of a chance to put them to good use conversationally.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Jim,
so good to see you again too…I do still read what gets posted here, though my homework schedule rarely allows me to get into conversations. While we’re on the topic of missions, I think the studies can wait for a minute.
I haven’t talked to any clowns or lion-tamers since I moved…what news of the circus?
DB,
Amen! BTW, Harvey is not the only SGM pastor to make bridal party members pass out: my old SP gave a doosey at a good friend’s wedding a few years ago called “The Tsunami in Asia, This Wedding, and the Gospel”. The maid of honor went down hard…
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
OK, so Jim said I could let it rip…
In the SGM church I attended, we had a “missions fund”. Now, what missionaries did this fund support? “Well, er, it goes to mortgage payments and repairs on the church building.” “Oh, well, why not call it a ‘building fund’?” “Because it supports our mission in St. Pete.”
And therein lies the semantical rub. What is “missions”? Can we slap that term on any and all church activities? Can you be, to use a phrase my old SP would use, a “missionary to St. Petersburg, FL”? To answer that, let’s direct our attention to Romans 15:19b-22, a passage that Piper has masterfully exegeted: “So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. 21Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.”[g] 22This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.”
Amazingly, Paul says, in essence, that from Jerusalem to Illyricum his work is done. Finished. Nothing left to do. But wasn’t there evangelism left to do? Sure. And mercy ministries? Yep. And home groups to start, and meals for the sick, and sin to be fought, widows and orphans to be taken care of, etc.? Right, of course. But here’s the thing: Paul isn’t called to those wonderful works. He’s called to be a missionary. What does a missionary do? He makes it his ambition to “preach the gospel where Christ was not known”. He is driven to see the vision of “every nation, tribe, people, and tongue” worshipping before the Throne fulfilled, and he knows there’s a gap between That Day and today that he’s called to help fill.
In Pinellas county, FL, where my old SGM church is, there are over 800 churches. Now I’d say the gospel has been preached there, with varying degrees of faithfulness to be sure, and that the missionary task as Paul would see it has been completed there. There’s a lot of kingdom work to do there, but no more missions. Missions takes the gospel where Christ isn’t known yet. I’ll give you a couple of examples: according to the Wycliffe Bible Translators, of the world’s 6000 languages, 2200 still do not have a single verse of scripture translated into them. In the Brazilian rainforest, there are still hundreds of tribes that do not have any known Christians in them, and are not known to have ever had the Gospel preached to them. Here’s the point: we’re commanded, corporately as Christ’s bride, to preach the Gospel to these groups. And we aren’t going to run into them in comfortable American suburbia. Somebody’s gotta go. And oh how beautiful will be the feet of those who go.
Here’s another important distinction: missions doesn’t just mean working with non-English speakers abroad. SGM is doing some fine work in Latin America, for instance, but Spanish-speaking Mexicans (for instance) are a reached people group. They already have a gospel witness. Paul-type work there is done.
Missions is a huge task. There are an awful of people who have never heard the precious name of our Lord. It requires us working together with Christians we don’t see eye-to-eye with. Arminians and Calvinists have to work together. Cessationists and Continuists have to work together. Para-church organizations are necessary, because no one denomination has enough gifted Bible translators to start a Wycliffe, for instance. It requires true humility, and true sacrifice for the kingdom.
Now here’s why I agree with PK that SGM’s missiology is the humble servant of SGM’s polity: their polity dictates that only “apostles” and pastors can expand the kingdom, and it disdains para-church organizations. Folks sitting in SGM pews, this is why Brent travels overseas and you don’t. This is why the important work that Campus Crusade and InterVarsity are doing is dismissed with the wave of the hand by the college pastor. SGM doesn’t do missions because they can’t control it, it requires working with those filthy Arminians and other Christians they disagree with, and most importantly: it takes the focus off of CJ’s teaching.
The last celebration that my wife and I went to, the usual “mission presentation” included, of course, a highlight of certain recent PC grads. What stood out to me was one of the grads had been a missionary to China before he came to SGM. He told the camera that he came home from the field “because there was no local church there, and I think it’s crucial to be in a local church”. My response was “you retard! Of course there wasn’t a local church. THAT’S WHY YOU WERE THERE!” Until SGM sets aside there self-centered, self-glorifying polity and asks the Lord to give them a heart for the unreached, they will continue in disobedience.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
exintern — You may have thought “You retard!” but I don’t think declaring it is helpful or nice, even though I heartily agree with your points. In other respects, YES, let it rip!!!! May the Lord send out workers into His harvest field!
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Oops, that should have not has said PK, but exintern.
Both of you, your comments at all related sites have been thoughtful, insightful, and have exposed and discussed much that needed exposing and discussion.
Let it rip!
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
LBG,
Sorry if the word choice offended. Diplomacy has never been my strength. Thanks for the encouragement. May the Lord indeed send workers to the field!!!
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
exintern–
in the future, please do not try to make such searingly logical arguments after a post that includes:
Harvey is not the only SGM pastor to make bridal party members pass out: my old SP gave a doosey at a good friend’s wedding a few years ago called “The Tsunami in Asia, This Wedding, and the Gospel”. The maid of honor went down hard…
I was howling so loudly after reading that, that I had a hard time readjusting myself to the FANTASTIC points that you made in your next post.
Much to think about. Thank you.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Hi DB:
In regard to:
Your response was:
If “we” means “PK,” then I should answer this. Yes, I am confident in quoting from this source. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology has entries from a wide range of folks in Evangelicalism. I’ve used it for years, and it has been a good counterbalance to much of the nonsense on both sides of the fence. Glasser’s entry was on the “Study of missions” moreso than it is describing the priorities and mandates of Missions themselves. I haven’t listed Glasser’s description of each category (except the first one), so before plastering a judgment on him or the EDT, I would encourage you to give the series a chance to pan out, first.
Glasser did not enumerate these, I did. I probably should have specified that. They are simply in the order he listed them, and I am positive there was not intentionality of importance on his part. For all I know the importance could have been ascending.
Good points on everything else… I just wanted to make it clear that I don’t have anything personal against Harvey.
Thanks DB!
…pk
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I must say, I find these SGM materials to be very condescending. Do these men truly believe that they have the gifting to oversee the church, speak “the oracles of God,” make sure the stupid sheep don’t fall into sin by dictating how they should live many aspects of life, and now do all “missionary” work, etc. all by themselves? Where is the equipping of the church for works of service? Does SGM consider works of service to be only those within the control and oversight of SGM pastors? In other words, only works that are sanctioned by the pastor and support his vision and direction for the local church, at the local church? Do they have ANY confidence that the Holy Spirit is at work in each believer?
I’m tired of this elitist type of thinking. Whether the source is some college professors and “intellectuals”, the elitist media, many of our politicians, or SGM polity, I am very weary of being made to feel like I’m not on the ball enough to understand the goings on in my world and have need of someone else to do my thinking for me. This is not Scriptural and I reject it.
Also, when someone is encouraged to give to a mission fund within our culture, it is generally understood that it is for new works, usually in unchurched areas. It seems dishonest to me that they would use missions giving for church building and maintenance within their stateside family of churches. I hope that they are being forthright with their members as to where their missions giving is going. At least then, people will know that it is not a traditional missions appeal.
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Outstanding post, Gracie!
…pk
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
exintern:
Outstanding post, especially this:
If we have a disdain for para-church organizations (which apparently we do) this is shameful, especially since we take advantage of their services on many occasions. In our church we have IBS prints of a foreign language bible, as well as tract packets put together by a para-church organization.
Keep up the good work, ex!
…pk
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:06 pm
last year, the missions focus was on the church in El Paso, Texas and the sister church across the border in Mexico. It also spoke of money going towards building a new Pastor’s College that would serve Spanish speaking countries - Mexio, Latin and South America regions. So the emphasis is not always on domestic churches and their buildings and programs.
It isn’t that the view is unbalanced in this way - I think what is of concern is that their idea of missions seems to be simply planting new churches. Everything is to this end, even the Pastor’s College. I agree with the fact that many pastors in underdeveloped countries don’t have access to Bibles, teachings, etc. But, I think SGM should be careful what they are supporting - are they truly wanting to further Christ’s Kingdom, or their own?
If the vast majority of spending is on SGM materials - their books, their music, their pastor’s college, one would think it might be a bit lopsided in their focus. My former church, for example, supports local ministries that have nothing to do with SGM. BUT I have read stories where SGM doesn’t encourage this type of giving. I don’t know if this is true or not to be honest. If my former church eventually stops giving to local ministries and non-SGM ministries, then I would think it is time to say “hey, what’s the deal??” Maybe this is already happening in other SGM churches,but for my own, it was not - yet.
Some SGM churches, as we have read, have active street evangelism - my own former church did as well, a door to door ministry for a time. One of the elders was very passionate about evangelism, which I think is unusual in SGM. Does this happen in other churches? From what I’ve read, not that often. Of course that could simply be a reflection of doctrine (calvinism) and not specifically SGM.
Missions is more than church planting - we all know that. Does SGM really know that? They can say all day they know it is more, but where do their energies, time, money and training go towards? I think that would answer our question. I don’t know what the focus is this year, but I heard it is more than just one Sunday of the mission video being shown, it is three Sundays of videos. And all tithing during those Sundays goes to SGM Mission fund regardless, none to the local churches from what I understand.
What was lacking last year in my opinion was the gospel - of course SGM would disagree. I just think we can talk church all day, invite to church all day, play church all day, and nobody’s lives are being changed. Religion doesn’t change lives, the gospel does. And the gospel is simple. The gospel is not calvinism, the gospel is not legalism, the gospel is not church, and the gospel is not church planting. If the focus is on these things, then the gospel is not being preached - and if the gospel is not being preached, then there IS no Missiology.
Paul went to a city and preached the gospel. The church is raised up when there are conversions. Sure, send a few people to a city if the Spirit leads and begin living life ther e- and preaching the gospel. When you have some converts- bingo - you have a church. But the colonization process I don’t find in Scripture anywhere. And I think that is why so many church plants fail, and many others never thrive. It is mostly sheep moving from one pasture to another, but few conversions.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Great comments, Juli. Following the money would answer a lot of questions. Whether intentional or not, our evangelsim is spent way too much on bringing Christians to our church, and not the lost.
…pk
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:51 am
Well PK, SGM is certainly not the only church guilty of that, unfortunately.
I think what is interesting is that they don’t seem to hide the fact that to them, missions IS church planting. And I could even go so far as to agree, in a way. But when church planting is done without conversions? I’d be interested to see how many new converts SGM churches have. Now, I know this would be hard pressed to know, or even have a “standard” by which one could measure it, since SGM is calvinistic. And I admit, coming from a Southern Baptist background, the absence of weekly altar calls was a bit odd at first. But there certainly was time in my former SGM church to make decisions, pray, etc. But to be honest, you never did hear of anyone coming to Christ, accepting Christ, realizing they were “elect” or whatever you want to call it. I always found that odd. I didn’t expect an emotionally charged altar call where we sing verse after verse begging people to repent and ask Jesus in their hearts - but a display of GOd at work would have been encouraging.
I’d like to see a balance between the two. Decisonal regeneration - I certainly don’t agree with, but there is something to be said about making your decision (if there was a true conversion, or if you are a calvinist - I guess it would be God’s decision, whatever) public and known. Testifying to your faith. I wish I had seen that more. We always had people join the church - but we knew nothing of their hearts, their spiritual history, etc. They would meet with the pastor beforehand, mainly for a talk - it was mainly to allow them the opportunity to question him, not the other way around.
When I think of the church in the New Testament, I think of powerful preaching, and people repenting. Simple as that. I didn’t see a lot of repenting unto salvation going on in the SGM church - and if so, you never heard about it. Why not? I don’t know. Always wanted to though. Repentance is something that brings glory to God - why don’t we see it more? Whether it is initial repentance unto salvation, or subsequent repentance during sanctification - why is it missing? Sure there was confession of sin - but we’re talking about missions, so I’m talking about salvation repentance. It was lacking, in a serious way.
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 am
Juli (by the way, that has nice ring… I never disliked “Concerned,” but “Juli” gets my vote. Maybe someday I can drop the PK name -hopefully in a positive context):
Good comments, all of them.
It’s my belief that Calvinist or not, a decision for Christ, whether public or not-so-public (as in my case) must be involved. I know some have a distaste for putting a line of demarcation in their lives like that. For me, it’s a positive thing. I lean toward Calvinism, and to me a decision for Christ is no less part of an expression of God’s sovereignty than anything else.
I think hyper-Calvinism hangs too much onto exterior things and what their idea of sanctification is, i.e. they get out the clipboard with their bullet points on how a Christian should behave, and make a premature determination of the validity of someone’s publc confession of faith, claiming to somehow know the mind of God (God forbid you aim the clipboard in their direction and what conclusions you would reach). One word for that: “Pharisee.” One sound for that: (PK makes protracted fart/raspberry sound). One sign for that: (thumbs down).
…pk
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Juli-we make our decision (TULIP is an opinion of why we decide) known through baptism.
PK- “to me a decision for Christ is no less part of an expression of God’s sovereignty than anything else.”
YES!
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Quoting Dave Harvey:
Apostolic Practice. How is the apostolicity of the church to be expressed if it is conceived as embracing the evangelistic practice of the apostles as well as their “received” teaching? What is the church’s collective responsibility touching the sending forth of laborers to “bring about the obedience of faith…among all the nations” (Romans 1:5)? (Elwell, 725)
It seems like the answers to these questions are easy. There really is no evangelism like the early apostles walked in. The current “apostles” do not embrace the evangelistic practice of the apostles, at least from what I have seen. How does Harvey explain this? Am I wrong in my assessment that SGM “apostles” do not go around the country, let alone around the world, preaching the gospel, healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, raising the dead, and beginning new churches for those who receive life in Jesus Christ?
How does Harvey answer this, I wonder? Or does he side-step it? It is so obvious that, if you are going to call yourselves apostles, you should at least attempt to walk in the early Apostles’ shoes (er…sandals).
On the topic of missions, aren’t we all on the same team? Don’t we all serve the same Christ? Then why does SGM think so badly of “para church” organizations? I just don’t understand.
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
canary said-“Don’t we all serve the same Christ? Then why does SGM think so badly of “para church” organizations? I just don’t understand.”
The answer would be found in their view of ecclesiology
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“last year, the missions focus was on the church in El Paso, Texas and the sister church across the border in Mexico. It also spoke of money going towards building a new Pastor’s College that would serve Spanish speaking countries ”
I know these two churches well. There are more wealthy people in both of these churches than in any church I know of on the eastern side. We’re talking grand, large, oh my gosh, I thought that was an apartment complex but it’s a house kind of wealth. One of the families I am thinking of, alone, could build an entire pastor’s college there and not have to skip a thing in their daily lives. Quite a few of the pastors are truly lovely people. I want to make it clear that their money (for those who have it) come from family, and they are not fleecing the church in any way, nor is their wealth “too much”. But there are great amounts of wealth in those 2 churches among many of their members. Just as there are very poor people. There are single moms whose husbands have abandoned them, who work VERY hard, trying to make rent each month on their small places and feed their children. Their children often end up having to forgo higher education to help their mothers survive. For them, giving up their education in modern day Mexico, where status and higher education are even more valued than here, is a trauma that keeps the family in the cycle of poverty for generatioin after generation.
Education is so important in the Mexican culture that the title of “degreed” is put before their names if they have a degree and you are left with no title without education.
For example, in the church bulletin there, the church staff is listed as “Degreed Joe Smith”, “Degreed Jane Doe”. And those without it are simply listed as “Jane Doe”. This humiliation not only goes to social situations but affects their possibility of putting food on the table and giving them a chance to have a savings that could enable them to not live in poverty as older men and women.
So is it the poor children in the churches there that the funds are being raised to educate?
Maybe I wasn’t really clear about what you said by pastor’s college. I mean, surely they meant it as a place that the pastors would give to the hurting sheep in their church.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“Jim said- canary said-“Don’t we all serve the same Christ? Then why does SGM think so badly of “para church” organizations? I just don’t understand.”
The answer would be found in their view of ecclesiology”
Stunned said- or maybe it would be found in their issues of control.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Canary,
You asked “Then why does SGM think so badly of “para church” organizations?”. The way it was always explained to me was that they took away from “the supremacy of the local church”. It’s so ridiculous it makes me want to puke. No para-church organization I have ever come into contact with has ever told the Christians in their spheres of influence “dude, you shouldn’t go to church. Being a church member is stupid. The Holy Spirit only works here at this ministry.” No, as a matter of fact, most require you to be an active church member to even participate in any ministry activities, let alone be on staff.
When I was interning at an SGM church, one of my tasks was to start a college ministry on a local campus where many kids in the church were dual-enrolling. I had a very dear friend from high school who had just joined the staff of Campus Crusade across the Bay in Tampa. I pitched the idea of partnering with CCC to reach this campus. I was told that I could go to their events and learn tactics from them, but we would not be partnering with them, because they were a parachurch organization. Every time the subject of college ministry came up, a disparaging remark about CCC or para-church orgs in general would be made by the Sr.P. In our “research”, the associate pastor and I contacted the college pastors at Philly and Knoxville(which SGM considers to be its mecca of college ministry). They too showed a strong dislike for CCC (and Intervarsity, for that matter).
Now, I happen to know for a fact that CCC strongly encourage all students to go to a local church, and staff members are required to both be church members and to provide rides for students who wish to attend their church. They partner with local churches on many ministry efforts. So, why the bogus rhetoric from SGM? Para-churches don’t take away from the “supremacy of the local church”, they take away from the supremacy of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
exintern said:
So, why the bogus rhetoric from SGM? Para-churches don’t take away from the “supremacy of the local church”, they take away from the supremacy of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
That is truly scary.
Maybe we don’t serve the same Christ after all.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
About the Pastor’s College to serve Spanish speaking pastors - at the time, I thought it was a wonderful idea. I still do actually, IF they would broaden their vision. It’s a training up in an SGM Pastor’s College. Now, I know, many denominations have their “own” seminaries and training centers - I disagree with all of it, so SGMis clearly not the only one guilty of this. I like to idea of equipping men to serve - it’s just the thought of what they would be learning that scares me.
I have no idea about the money of course, where it goes, who gets trained, etc. The video, if I remember correctly (and it is probably on YouTube somewhere come to think of it) featured a few of the families who relocated to help start the church in Mexico, and some pastors from (I think) South America. They weren’t from Mexico is all I remember.
Covenant Ministries or something like that is a ministry out of one of the SGM churches on the east coast, forget which one - they have a ministry of adopting orphans from Africa and sending money to them, etc. They make a point of saying the money will go to the church to then be distributed tot he families so they form a relationship with these children and their mothers. I actually liked the idea of this - IF the church does not abuse their authority - it is a good thing to have financial accountability esp overseas where even “local missionaries” are often corrupt from what I’ve heard from brothers and sisters who have ministered over there.
That’s the hard thing - accountability is certainly Biblical. And I agree in principle with all that SGM teaches as far as having accountability. But because in some cases it actually is “lording power over” as Paul warned against, it ruins it. It makes you NOT want to be accountable for anything. For the same reason many women fear submission to their husbands when they first think of it - do you know why? Because most women fear: what if my husband is wrong? Or deceived? Or not even saved? Then what? It makes us feel scared and trapped. I’m not justifying anyone NOT submitting or going into that whole deal, but I see the same principle at work in the churches. Only problem is, do church leaders actually HAVE spiritual authority over you in the same way a husband does over his wife? Should the submission look the same?
I got off on a tangent, sorry PK! Just thinking about the accountability in missions and how it really is a Biblical principle, but the lack of trust and ”lording over” issues make it impossible. Too bad. God had a great plan there to keep us safe. And we went and messed it up - again!
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I have been reading posts and responses on this site for about 5 weeks now but have not posted. I started researching SGM and reading posts because I was trying to figure out why we have never seen an actual Bible Study offered in our church. For the past 3 years our church has been in a constant state of change, so I attributed the lack of studies to this upheaval. I got hooked on the Polity series by PK and then began asking even more questions. I am beginning to believe that our lack of Bible Studies may be due to the fact that SGM believes that only the “elders” can dispense this knowledge to the flock. Am I correct?
Missiology was my next topic to explore–thank you, PK, for tackling this one too. I wanted to just share our experience in regards to the topic of para-church ministries. My husband and I were being interviewed by our SP to see if we could become members when he noticed that we had both written on our applications that we became Christians through the Young Life ministry. Young Life is a para-church ministry to disinterested, unchurched high school students. The SP actually said to the both of us, “I didn’t think Young Life actually proclaimed the Gospel.” After we picked our jaws up off the floor, we tried to correct his erroneous assumption. I left that interview a little stunned by the SP’s arrogance, but attributed it to his personal pride and misunderstanding of this ministry. We have seen that our local church has no interest in partnering with any ministry for any reason, but I had no idea it was an organizational postition in regards to para-church ministries.
Frankly, both the church’s position on polity and on missiology is frightening. I am thoroughly enjoying searching the Scriptures and solidifying my personal, and prayerfully, Biblical views on the subjects though. Thank you to all of you! Thanks also for letting me know that Wayne Grudem actually wrote “Systematic Theology,” and now I don’t have to survive on the slimmed down/edited version that is pushed in our church.
I appreciate all the time and effort put into this site. Keep up the great work! I remain alarmed but grateful for work you have done.
October 4th, 2008 at 3:05 am
Alarmed,
Welcome!
Thank you for your kind words.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Alarmed-
Just so you know, this Sr pastor’s reaction to Young Life is typical in my experience with SGM. But what’s odd is that CJ’s son in law talks about becoming a Christian thru Young Life. But this is what happens when you emphasize that the gospel is best experienced by the authority of the local church instead of the scriptural belief that the gospel proclaimed (by anyone-wheher their motive is pure or not) is the power of God to save all who hear and believe. Paul especially seems to emphasize (in 1 Corinthians) that who you heard the good news from is not what should be important.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Juli and musicman:
Apologies your comments were held by some spam filter, that’s why they are late in showing up.
Alarmed:
Echoing Jim’s thanks for the kind words, I’d also like to welcome you to the ‘Fuge! Great comments, too, and know I will be praying for you and your family. Mine and Jim’s posts here only scratch the surface on these topics, and to actually hear reports of folks searching the scriptures and doing personal/family bible studies blesses my heart.
Juli:
You are not going off on a tangent; the comments are great and helpful and stayed on track with our topic. Even if you went off on a tangent, we’re always interested in what you have to say. Thank you for letting God temper your posts with His word and your obvious love for the church that shines through in each of your posts.
On a quick sidenote and one example among many in my own SGM church… we have partnered with a para-church crisis-pregnancy type organization and an orphanage on many, many occasions and evangelistic activities. To my knowledge they are not specifically SGM-founded organizations, either. There is hope for SGM churches, folks; not all of them are making calls from the Philadelphia Pharisees playbook. Keep praying!
…pk
October 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I’ve been thinking about the missions/parachurch subject for a few days. As long as the name of Jesus is being preached to the world, why should SGM have any trouble with that? Youth Missions, Campus Crusade, Y-Wam, etc…only seek to preach the gospel. There can be only a few reasons for SGM’s disapproval of such organizations.
One that comes to mind is that SGM thinks that only they are able to preach the true gospel, that others not “under” local churches must have it wrong. I’ve been looking for a verse that I just can’t find. Someone was preaching Jesus and the Disciples/Apostles complained that this person was not of themselves, so he shouldn’t be preaching. The response was so grace-filled. As long as Jesus Christ was being preached, what did it matter who did it? Can anyone point me to that section in the Bible? I would really appreciate the help.
Also, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is pretty simple. It doesn’t take a Pastor, leader, or theologian to spread it. There is nowhere in the New Testament that says a person must be “allowed” by the local church to go out and preach the Good News. God bless all the people and organizations out there who continue to share Jesus Christ with those who don’t know Him. I came to know the Lord through a Keith Green concert when I was eighteen. I will be forever grateful to this brother, who gave so much of Jesus to so many.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hey pk,
I was wondering how long your pastor has been at your church…approximately…like say…over 7 years or under 7 years?
October 4th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Canary,
How about Philippians 1:12-18? May not be the exact one you were thinking of, but it could work.
12Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has actually caused the gospel to advance. 13As a result, it has become clear to the whole imperial guard and to everyone else that I am in prison for preaching about[i] the Messiah. 14Moreover, because of my imprisonment the Lord has caused most of the brothers to become confident to speak God’s word more boldly and courageously than ever before. 15Some are preaching the Messiah because of jealousy and dissension, while others do so[j] because of their good will. 16The latter are motivated[k] by love, because they know that I have been appointed to defend the gospel. 17The former proclaim the Messiah because they are selfishly ambitious and insincere, thinking that they will stir up trouble for me during my imprisonment. 18But so what? Just this—that in every way, whether by false or true motives, the Messiah is being proclaimed. Because of this, I rejoice and will continue to rejoice.
Oh, and by the way, love that Keith Green!
October 4th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Ellie asked:
I’m sorry Ellie, I can’t reveal that at this time. I hope you can understand.
…pk
October 5th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Gracie,
Thanks. That’s the verse. Interesting that Paul said that, whether by true or false motives, the gospel is being proclaimed. So I say, whether by local church, para church, friendship evangelizing, or one person standing on a street corner preaching Jesus, “I will rejoice and continue to rejoice!” For SGM or any group to criticize others for preaching Christ outside of their authoriy is nonsense.
Thanks, Gracie. I am settled in my mind on the subject. Your grrrrrrreat!
October 5th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Wait…does this deal with the question of whether SGM thinks only they can preach it right (even though they don’t do it very often with the unsaved)? Is that what’s going on? Or, maybe they include their church doctrine/polity etc. as part of the gospel. If that is true, it isn’t how the good news was preached in the bible. It was simple. Believe in, trust in, rely on Jesus and you will be saved. Is it possible that churches like SGM have piled on alot of extras to the gospel of Jesus so that it is no longer simple, which then makes them believe that only they can preach it right (even though their gospel is preached to Christians!)?
Oh great, now I’ll lay awake thinking. Anybody have any answer to this? I would love to understand.
October 5th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Canary, I was thinking of the same verse as Ellie, but also the one in Mark - I had to search for it cause I didn’t know where it was either:
Mark 9: 38“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
Now, what exactly would be defined as ”FOR” in the sense of the gospel? I think Paul made it very clear in Galatians that preaching or teaching legalism is NOT the true gospel, it is another gospel, and in that case, Pharisees are “against” us. Jesus was the most harsh with the Pharisees himself. I don’t see him coddling them, he rebuked them, called them to repentance. He cared for and ministered to those who were aware they were unrighteous, not the self-righteous.
With regard to SGM which clearly has been impacted by the leaven of the Pharisees (legalism, another gospel) we must be discerning and realize that there are exceptions - some churches aren’t legalistic, some SGM pastors are not, and some even in leadership at SGM may not be, who knows? But the fact remains that where we SEE and HEAR legalistic teachings and attitudes we CORRECT it. We bring it to light AS legalism. That is what the blogs do. But we need to be careful to focus on the false teaching and false gospel, and not lump everyone into the same category.
If, for example, so-and-so in SGM wrote a book or paper or preached a sermon that was legalistic, and this was evident, then we point out the error. Attack the teaching, not the vehicle by which it is being proliferated (Sgm or a particular man). When you attack teachings and doctrines and not man (who our battle is not against anyway) you can have a clear conscience that you have not judged motives or the heart. We are simply speaking the truth, in love.
We all need to be careful to remember that. If people reading these blogs see even a hint of us focusing on people’s motives, they are outta here, as can be expected. What people should see when they come on here is a glaring revelation of truth - in opposition to false teaching, practices, and doctrines. And we tend to be heavy on sharing our experiences, which is OK to an extent. But I appreicate the fact that PK has taken the time to present the fase teachings and doctrines present in SGM. The focus is right, and helpful as we all can testify.
The balance would be this:
1) present the false teachings, experiences, and false doctrines against the backdrop of truth (shown in the Word).
2)When someone is unable to “make the connection” between why their negative SGM experience was a certain way, link it to the false teachings that likely contributed to this (again against the backdrop of the Word).
3) Finally, discuss personal responsibility, if any. We don’t see alot of that unfortunately, but it will come in time. I think because we were all in the “indwelling sin” camp that we are a bit tired of public confessions of sin, we hate “sin sniffing” etc. But we are still sinners of course. And I don’t see any sin sniffers on this blog, so it should be a good place to discuss the things we were hesitant to before, under an authoritarian system. There is love for one another on this blog here, that is evident. And God will reveal our responsibility, if applicable, as well.
These are some things the Lord has been teaching me lately, how to walk in love, and how to speak the truth. What causes others to stumble, and so on. So I wanted to share it with you guys. I hope it is encouraging - it is possible to see change in SGM and in the lives of those we love. But we have a responsibility to respond with self-control, not anger. I’ve been so guilty of responding to my experience in anger for so long - I think that is the “biting and devouring one another” that Paul warned against.
October 5th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Juli,
I hope my last two posts didn’t appear angry. I wasn’t upset, just asking questions, trying to understand. Thanks for the verse. That was the other one I was looking for.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Good comments all…
Has anyone considered the great divide between one who is moral, and one who is moralistic?
Don’t look on dictionary.com, as I don’t think it will be helpful.
I’m hoping that I’ll have time this week to address this, at it has become a crucial component of SGM SOP.
I’m sorry that Carole and I have in essence removed our voice from this blog. It’s a seasonal issue.
Please know that we still love our friends here, and continue to love “the mission” here.
Thank God for our friend PK.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:23 am
We love you too, Jim and Carole! No apologies needed. And you’re right, PK is holding down the fort for you quite well. Blessings!
October 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Canary, sorry, sometimes I answer someone or comment to someone and then move into a “just speaking to whoever is reading” mode - so I apologize. DIdn’t mean for you to thin I was spekaing directly to you about all that - just yacking
Jim and Carole - wondered why you guys seemed to disappear - but it is good to take a break. October is my FAVORITE month - and my son was also born this month ten years ago - now I am feeling old
I love this time of year, the weather, the comfort foods, the smells (apples, cinnamon, spice, pumpkin) the leaves..all of it. I wish I lived in the Northeast this time of year, I bet Vermont and Maine are gorgeous right now. Maryland, when I lived there, was pretty beautiful in the fall in Western MD.
whatver you guys are doing, I hope you are enjoying this time of year…
October 7th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Juli,
No problem. Glad I didn’t offend.
Wait til your son turns 23, then talk about feeling old!
Oh, and go into Hollester’s with your two teen daughters. I always go away from that store feeling a ancient. At least they have comfortable leather chairs for us geriatrics to sit and rest our weary feet, while rock music blares so loud that our ears ring. It’s really bad when we begin tapping our feet to the beat! Or when we realize that the largest size in the