What I've read recently on Worship.

David Peterson's Book "Engaging with God". You can find a summary (and a reasonably critical critique here)
I skimmed through this book when it first came out and was unexcited as it seemed like more of the same kind of stuff I'd heard before. But on my return in late 06 to the book, I found it incredibly refreshing for its biblical approach insightful. (There is so much rubbish around with the word "Worship" in the title.) It was exactly the mind stretch I needed as I sat down to review what was and wasn't working about Sundays at dpc. It is, as the linked review says, short on practical examples for how church will look different, which is why the next thing I read was helpful...

Tim Keller's article Evangelistic Worship which is an extended version of his chapter in "Worship By The Book" (ed. Don Carson). While the book overall was an interesting read, Keller's chapter is the standout. The other contributors to the book, including the great Don himself, seem to just assume that church-worship. Along with some other "status quo" assumptions, it makes for a slightly frustrating read.

Keller gives a short but immensely insightful overview of the Reformer's views on worship, showing how their church meetings were practically different from the medieval mass because of different views of how grace works. He then distinguishes the meetings of Calvin & Zwingli to show how different views of grace led to nuances in how they did church. His exploration of Calvin's approach, in particular the need for response to the gospel to be expressed and modelled in the corporate meeting was stimulating. His examples of how this gets worked out at Redeemer are helpful, though obviously what works in NY, may not be appropriate elsewhere. Its changing my thinking on church - in particular moving the sermon earlier, and doing more of our singing and praying in response to God.

Keller is strong on the place of the sacraments in gospel focussed church meetings. His discussion of the way historical forms can really connect with post-modern congregations is very significant (more ing

Like all the contributor's to the book, Keller persists in using "worship" for what happens in church, See my rant here for why I want to quibble on this.

Philip Percival's article in the Dec 2006 issue of The Briefing. Takes Keller's line of argument and flesh's out the issues for singing in church. Cracker article for giving to your musos.

Changing My Theology of Work

We did a short series on work at DPC at the end of 2006. Two reflections:

Overwork is so much more an issue now. Perhaps in the careerist, materialistic inner West especially. I made this a bit of an issue in the first talk on Work & Rest. I was suprising by the strong reaction. Quite a few peoople in tears as we spoke about overwork. It has made me more aware of how huge a discipleship issue this is for us at DPC.

Perhaps more than I would have earlier, I found myself noticing the NT teaching on the goodness of work, not just as a means of giving to gospel work, but as a way to do good.
(i) The public good in providing a service,
(ii) private good in providing for my family
(iii) good to those I work with especially my boss in how I faithfully work, and an evangelistic good in making the teaching of God our Father attratictive in that faithful work.
(iv) a good in having a means to support the work of the kingdom.

I was at a conference this week where it got said that if you aren't in full time ministry, the only reason you go to work is to be able to give to kingdom work - thus making you a kingdom worker! While it was a great talk, that applied that idea perceptivly and practically, it seemed to miss some of the other NT ideas.

At the other end of the pendulum (so to speak), while I found Tim Keller (one of my heroes) very helpful, and drew a lot on his stuff, I was really suprised at how much he bought into the idea of secular work as our calling or vocation.

Listen to Talks on Work Here (3 talks in series)

On work being a mixed blessing this side of the Fall. Click here for a great liitle rant. (Thanks for drawing this to my attention Linden.)

Some Thoughts on Planting Churches

Planning to Plant - Getting the Order Right

The natural way we think about church planting, is completely upside down. Often we feel that we cannot approach a church planter until we have something concrete in the way of a core group, scenario and funding. But this way of doing things, is actually doing the church planter no favours at all, and is probably the very thing that will doom the project before it even begins.

Let me propose that we should work in this order:

Church Planter first.
Core Group Second.
Funding will follow.

Church Planter first.
Nothing is more crucial than finding a prospective church planter appropriate in his gifts and godliness. The PCAmerica reduced the number of church plants that failed from 40% to 10% by improving the way they selected church planters .

• Personality Type

• Personal Godliness

• Ministry Skills

• Missiological Understanding

• Sending a Team

Core Group Second.
PCAmerica and PCNSW experience would suggest that church planters should recruit their own core groups.

When a core group is formed and then a church planter imposed/appointed, it has potential for significant problems. When the church planter comes into a pre-existing group, he must “wrestle” the leadership off whoever already has it (eg. the person who had the vision and initiative to start the group), and establish his own leadership style and agenda over the top of the group’s already existing goals and expectations.

The current experience of the PCAmerica is that lack of core group cohesion is the main reason church plants fail. They have become very cautious of pre-existing core groups, in many instances prefer to plant from scratch. Allen Thompson from PCAmerica believes that often the wrong people are attracted to core groups, the main three kinds being:

1. People disaffected with their current churches. They have serious relational problems, and/or have a “problem with leaders”. They infect the core group with their resentments and problems. They distract the group from its task. They eventually leave the core group for the same reasons they left their original church.

2. People who are power hungry. In their current churches they are small fish in a big pond, or have simply been passed over. They see the core group as a place to have greater personal power and influence. They either take control, or split the group and take a faction with them, or leave to find another small group to destroy.

3. “Small is beautiful” people. They find their current church large and impersonal. They are attracted to the new, small, cohesive core group. However, they resist and resent growth. As the church plant grows, they eventually leave for the same reasons they left their original church.

NB The importance of the cohesive core group should remind us that existing churches should never give away to church plants these kind of people. Neither should they give away those not currently involved in key ministries and therefore will not be missed too much. We should consider giving our best, most gifted, most involved and indispensable people!!

If a church planter can’t raise his own core group, maybe he shouldn’t be a church planter. By starting from scratch, he can gather around him people who are comfortable with his leadership style. They have come, first and foremost because they have confidence in the leadership and ministry of the church planter. Experience suggests that having a period of 6 months before the church plant actually begins to “talk up” the prospective church plant has the effect of bringing people “out of the woodwork” to join the core group.

And the funding will follow. Once you have the right church planter and a cohesive core group, funding will never be a problem. If the church planter can attract a core group of ten givers, half the job of funding is accomplished already. Once the group is formed outside funding is more likely to materialise. Churches and individuals are much more likely to give to a concrete imminent project, led by someone they can have confidence in; than they are to give to a vague, head office, church planting slush fund with no specific plans. If we wait for the funds to materialise, as the first step rather than the last step, then nothing will ever happen.

Implications… (to mention just a few)

1. Lets rethink who should be church planters.

2. Lets stop shrugging our shoulders and saying: There is no core group in this area so we should put off church planting.

3. Lets stop shrugging our shoulders and saying: There is no funding from head office, so there is no point thinking about church planting.

4. Lets pray for the Lord of the harvest to raise up workers specifically gifted as church planters.

Some more thoughts on church planting from Tim Keller