dig in

Here is a little treasure trove of downloadable books /material on church planting, house churches, and leadership teams by the inimitable Dick Scroggins. Check under ‘books’ and ‘other resources.’

July 7, 2007 | Filed Under church planting, resources |

Comments

21 Responses to “dig in”

Matt Stone on July 7th, 2007 9:01 pm

Ta Alan. I’ll bookmark it and explore at leisure
Mike Gastin on July 7th, 2007 10:46 pm

Excellent find - thanks, Alan!
Stephen Hulsey on July 8th, 2007 12:51 am

Alan,

I really enjoyed The Forgotten Ways. The addendum was worth the price of the book, although the overall contents were substantive and informative.

I am a pastor in a Presbyterian (USA) Church. So I am one of the guys attempting to shake up the equalibrium. It’s been and continues to be a challenge.

I would like to make one constructive comment about a statement you made on page 261 in the Addendum. You wrote: “Theological liberalism is an indicator of institutioal decline…” Then later you comment that even the more established evangelical (theologically conservative?) churches are also stuck in the Christendom mode and are beginng to experience decline. Well, this is what I heard you saying.

My point is this: Theological liberalism, as I understand it today is not an attempt to soften the tension between the Gospel and culture. In fact, author Marcus Borg, an avowed liberal theologian insists that the early Jesus movement was at odds with the culture (Rome–Empire) in which it was planted. So I do not agree that theological liberalism can be considered a benchmark for denominational decline. I believe rather it is the refusal of the liberal (and conservative leadership)leadership to address the issues of decline and to acknowledge that there has been a massive cultral shift that requires new ways to think about being the church.

In the new paradigm of emerging theologies it is time to rid ourselves of old labels that do nothing but divide and alienate us from each other. In the emergent paradigm folks on both sides of the old theological divide are discovering common gorund, e.g., Brian MacLaren (conservative) and Diana Butler Bass (liberal). Thanks for the time to comment. Keep writing! Keep thinking! And most of all keep challenging us old liberals–many of us love it.
Alan Hirsch on July 8th, 2007 1:58 am

Stephen, thanks so much for the feedback. I think you well understand that I write those comments not to be unnecessarily offensive and to take sides in the US debate, but simply to comment on the nature of theological liberalism in relation to movements. Thanks for hearing me as you clearly have.

As for Borg, it is one thing to say (rightly) that the Jesus movement was at odds with Rome and quite another to adapt Jesus’ notion of an interventionist God to suit the sensibilities of his audience. His Jesus is mere man, a nicer version of Che Guevara. The fact that he reinterprets Jesus in this fashion indicates that his liberalism is clearly an attempt to minimize the tension between gospel and culture.

Thanks for visiting.
Joe Cross on July 8th, 2007 2:05 am

Great resources Alan. I love his study of the ministry in Ephesus. I’m learning a lot (and have a long way to go) in understanding how to apply the Ephesians 4 ministries in launching movements everywhere.

We’re aiming to launch movements on every university campus in Mexico City, as well as initiating church planting movements through local church partnerships. How do you see the ministries of Ephesians 4 fitting into church planting strategies (i.e. church planting teams under the authority of the elders, church planting teams with autonomy but accountable to the sending church, etc.)?
Alan Hirsch on July 8th, 2007 4:58 am

Joe, the best I can say is that I think Eph 4 it is critical piece of genetic information and that it should be a dimension of all church work, not just church planting.
Peggy Brown on July 8th, 2007 7:08 am

Oh, Alan…this site prods me onward as I work to bring CovenantClusters “on-line”! I agree with much of what he intends, but I do find that I had more of a “dissonance” rather than “resonance.”

I’m sure that you will understand this…being a woman to whom God has give a vision for a meta-cluster-church planting movement! This vision is just too narrow for the likes of this holy rebel…

I’ve been following a discussion over at Jesus Creed about house churches, as you know, and put a bug in their ear about Robert and Julia Banks’ excellent book, “The Church Comes Home.” In it, they have some very timely advise about the dangers of idealizing the first Christians as well as the dangers of inappropriately copying them.

It seems to me that Brother Scroggins’ model has a bit of a challenge, to me, in this area. He has, as have so very many over the centuries, chosen to hold fast to the form of the first century house churches, when much of that is cultural. I won’t go into his argument here and now, but I would like for you and others to take a look at this more closely.

I also have a personal bug with “covenanting” in any other way than robust hesed/covenant-keeping of the New Covenant…better to do it right the first time then to have to sit down and say, “okay, now, we’re really going to be faithful to each other, now, right?” (Over-emphasis/sarcasm intended )

Bob C. should be pleased…I’m pushing a little

I am grateful that he has generously made so much of his wisdom available to others with the same “culture”–I am all for not having to recreate wheels that have been proven by rolling along the frontier!
Peggy Brown on July 8th, 2007 7:21 am

Okay, let me give an example of “inappropriately copying” from the book: on pages 45 and 46, speaking about lines of authority, Banks says that the first century household generally centered on the husband/father/master….but that Paul’s approach to authority was flexible enough to allow women a share in the oversight of the churches in their homes.

He goes on to say that the abolition of slavery and the liberation of women create conditions for a more varied approach than was possible in Paul’s day.

I know that you are supportive it Banks’ position, Alan, so don’t think this is aimed at you. It is just an observation that I make after looking through the document at the site.

…always pushing back when pushed aside
alan hirsch on July 8th, 2007 7:44 am

Pegs, push away. I am not saying that I might agree with everything Dick writes anyway. I am not sure however what exactly he says that you disagree with. If it is binding us to NT house churches, I have to agree with you. They are fundamentally differento to our idea of family and houses. They are more like our experience of a third place (e.g. a cafe) than they are a bastion for the nuclear family to hide in.
Peggy Brown on July 8th, 2007 8:08 am

Alan, I never assume anyone agrees with everything someone else says/writes

his leadership structures in the church are where I disagree, hence the reference to Banks’ book and the changes in culture that need to be acknowledged when it comes to sharing leadership with everyone, not just the husband/father/master/man as elder/deacon.

In the “Papers” section, under “House Church Values Defined” you will find his take on women leaders, which I have copied below:

“Women leaders

We hold to the biblical limitation of male elders (I Tim. 2:12 ; I Tim 3:2 ) but we recognize, encourage, and depend on women leaders (not elders) who shepherd, teach, and disciple the women of the church (Titus 2:3 ). Certainly there are women who are gifted and called as teachers. These are mentioned in Titus 2:3 “Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good.” The church needs gifted women pastors and teachers, because it is inappropriate, and ultimately impossible for a man to be an example for a woman or for a woman to be an example for a man. This is why men are called to teach and shepherd men, and women are called to teach and shepherd women. The church will be weak if men usurp the role of women in teaching women, not to mention to the plague of immorality that has destroyed many churches, which stems from men treading where they ought not to with regard to women’s ministries.”

So, there it is…a bit of a new twist on an old twist for me.

I think it will be news to many men that they are not to teach women…which sheds a little light on why Bro. Scoggins has the men and women gather separately….I do not want to return to this place, brother….
alan hirsch on July 8th, 2007 9:09 am

mmmm, well I don’t agree with him here. For those who hold to similar positions and say that we need only male ministry to be faithful. I say look at Western church history…totally dominated by males and where are we now?
Peggy Brown on July 8th, 2007 10:12 am

Well, it’s the whole leadership/power/authority “confusion” — and it isn’t just a man/woman issue, either.

But don’t get me started on that one…I was over at Brother Maynard’s the other day and stumbled into their “Smackdown” dialogue on churches importing secular management methodology:
http://www.subversiveinfluence.com/wordpress/?p=1297

But it is a big issue…and another Forgotten Way, since Jesus spoke clearly to this one…”can you hear me now?”
James Nored on July 8th, 2007 1:38 pm

A thought–if men cannot minister to women, then what of Jesus? He is the new Adam, and our example for everything.

Clearly there are instructions for gender specific ministry, and a great need for this. But ministry across gender lines is essential as well.
Peggy Brown on July 8th, 2007 3:43 pm

This line of thinking about totally segregated teaching/ministry is internally inconsistent. There have to be those from each gender to teach others.

Takes me back to the elders who told me I could teach their boys until they were 13, but after that I wouldn’t be able to…I suggested that if I was to teach them for the first 13 years, it would be difficult to undo…

It is a human accommodation to both fear of scandal and the failure to embrace mutual submission and appropriate accountability, IMO. There is no sense of the power of the Holy Spirit to transform and transcend…
christina on July 8th, 2007 9:47 pm

It is interesting, this emphasis on teaching and the gendered fighting that goes on about it. Just Thanks for your thoughts Peggy. What is there about the stories of Jesus, the message of God who loves the world enough to enter it and set up in the midst of our story, that requires a gendered response to passing it on? Maybe the argument is more about the importance we place on teaching rather than the embodying of the story. There doesn’t seem to be the same kind of issue concerning who gets to go to Africa and tell the story. Mission seems to be less (a)gendered when it is taken out of the western sphere.
christina on July 8th, 2007 9:50 pm

oops, couple of typos there…
Bob Carder on July 9th, 2007 2:45 am

Peg, I am pleased. Keep pushing away. May your tribe increase.
Bob Carder on July 9th, 2007 3:14 am

Scoggins is on track for sure. Thanks Alan for linking us to this article on Ephesians 4 .

This is how we are operating in St. Louis as we launch a disciple making movement of God birthed churches. As the APEPT functions along with the other gifts of the Body and under the total leadership/power of the Holy Spirit we have a movement that cannot be stopped.

Alan, I appreciate you and Scoggins bringing this to our attention. It is a deal breaker.

America needs to dump her hierarchy and get back to the way Jesus intends for us operate. But then again the pastor won’t be so important and needed and powerful. Will we ever change?
Peggy Brown on July 9th, 2007 7:57 am

Bob, I’m counting on the change happening one group at a time…and, yes the pastor won’t be “so important and needed and powerful” and we’ll get back to relying on the Holy Spirit to gift and equip ALL the saints for ministry.

But your comment (#18) has me a bit confused:

“Alan, I appreciate you and Scoggins bringing this to our attention. It is a deal breaker”

What “deal breaker” are you talking about that Scoggins brought to your attention?
Bob Carder on July 11th, 2007 5:41 pm

Peg: Forgive my long-winded response. The deal breaker is that I want no part of any movement that does not take Ephesians 4 seriously in application. We must use the Apept as Alan suggests as well as all the other gifting of the Church to fulfill the ministry of Great Commission in missional movements. God set it up for us and instead we (I) chose the hierarchical model in her place.

For me, implementing Ephesians 4 along with the gifting of the Church is a deal breaker. I want no part of anything that does not follow Scriptural Truth in how we function or operate as the Church.

I left the pastoral ministry after 24 years with success in man’s eyes, but I didn’t have the sense to see that my ministry lacked the involved gifts of each believer along with the use of APEPT as God ordained. I was happy with people filling vacancies in our predetermined ministries. I failed to use those Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers. I chose to be the one who decided what ministries people could be involved in. In the end I grieved God’s Spirit and I will forever grieve in my heart over this fatal error. I just did what was expected of me and I failed God and those in my care. I now know that God wants to use all of us, not some of us at the same level as all of us.

The Ephesians 4 passage is important and needed in application if we are to have missional movements of transformational impact.

The deal breaker is that if we will not use the gifts of the Church Body as well as identifying the APEPT in the Church family then I’m out. The days of hierarchy are over for me. I’m going with the Jesus way and not the present way.

Sorry to confuse you. The deal breaker has to do with me being in or out. I’m out with hierarchy and ministry for the few and I’m in for the APEPT and gifts of the people. Let’s just release the Church to be the Church without clergy influence/control and let’s just let them serve wherever - in their gifting and out of their passions etc.

Once again, thanks to Alan and others for helping us see this important link in mode of operation for Holy Spirit led Missional Movements in America and around the world. The days of Reverend are over for me. We are all on the same level. Jesus is Lord and we all serve as we have been made to serve. Whether it be the leaderships gifts of the APEPT or the individual spiritual gifts, all are important and none are more important or more needed than the other.

Again, it’s late and I am passionately long winded.
Peggy Brown on July 12th, 2007 3:02 pm

Thanks for the clarification, Bob. Yes, anything that undermines the priesthood of the believer is a deal breaker for me, as well. The Ephesians 4 APEST model is for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry.

There is only one head to this Body–Christ. And that which animates this Body–connecting all the various parts so that the Body actually functions as intended–is the Holy Spirit, indwelling and leading us to accomplish God’s mission.

No room for heirarchy here…but I am intrigued by some of that swarm theory….