Who are the “stand out exceptions”? What marks them as so?

Those that aren’t dead:P, they are listenign to God’s call, they are allowing Him to shape them rather than programs or idealogies

What leads you to the conclusion that “the church is currently comitting suicide in the Australia context”? That’s quite a bold call!

looking at national figures of people going to church, looking at the loss of biblical centrality within denominations, the drop in numbers training for ministry.
the lack of christ centred mission.
Plus it is not my statement, it is a well maintained theory.

Interesting points, and thanks for the clarification Josh.
1. why is there a loss of Biblical centrality?
2. why is there a decline in the number of people training for ministry?
3. why is there a lack of Christ-centred mission (this would relate to point 1)
I would be interested to talk through these points.
I do however believe that the essence of our role in ministry is to be salt and light – as you say Josh, to be impacted by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I am concerned that instead of a return to this approach, we see the answer to declining church numbers in needing to do church differently, rather than being firmly rooted in the gospel and living our lives in an authentic response to it.

“rather than being firmly rooted in the gospel and living our lives in an authentic response to it”
I agree and that is what i am wanting to see happen. What i would like to see people do is be prepared to be moved and shaped in different ways. I think the problem has been that in the past we have had the approach and thought that what we are doing is right and that there is no need to change. Our role as Christians is to be constantly changed and moulded by Christ, which will invovle the same Gospel throughout the ages yet the communication method and what it looks like will varie from age to age whilst still remaining committed to the centrality that comes from Salvation of Jesus Christ and God’s grace.

I think I can see where you’re coming from. I guess the question then is, what does ministry, what do churches look like (or need to look like) if we are to change to meet the current circumstances?

I agree that models cannot be simply placed into certain situations and expected to work (we have chatted this over re-Moser before), however the freedom which emergent brings to the table, whilst good in its variety of styles, at some stage needs to be generalised, becasue otherwise you end up with a church for every sinlg person and their differences.
I’m okay with trying to use methods which are theologically and morally neutral for the gospel, but there really isnt any form of ministry that isnt in some way programmatic, unless of course you take away the gospel.
To me thats the only way you can be truly non-programmatic, becasue then your ‘worship style’(for want of a better word) is truly driven by selfishness.
The desire to reach people who we often miss is something we ought to be doing, but being non-programmatic in an evangelical setting

whoops, left two words off
……………..is impossible

i agree with you that at some point we need to be generalised, cause some of communities of faith are basically just becoming little “i like it done this way” groups.
I suppose the difference i see between a community of faith that is programatic to one which is not is the missiological thinking behind why they do what they do. Why do we change?
is it for change sake?
because we have seen it work somewhere else?
because if we do it this way we think that we will grow?
is it becasue we are compelled by Christ?

I can’t help feeling that if we really care for people, we’ll know them and love them, and if we do we’ll know what appeals to them and what doesn’t, and we’ll (in Paul’s words) be “all things to all people in order to save some”. So church will inevitably be different, just like some of the emerging people suggest.
“we see the answer to declining church numbers in needing to do church differently, rather than being firmly rooted in the gospel and living our lives in an authentic response to it”
I don’t feel these things need to be set in opposition. If we are firmly rooted in the gospel, of course we’ll do church differently because God is always doing new things and people are always changing, and it’ll be important that we change too.

“If we are firmly rooted in the gospel, of course we’ll do church differently because God is always doing new things and people are always changing, and it’ll be important that we change too.”
Love your wisdom Unkle E

I’m not sure I see the logic in that statement.
Why is the fact that people are always changing lead to the conclusion that the church needs to change?
In fact, I think that when we start to try to change to be more accommodating the gospel can come under threat, because it is offensive and it can be tempting to take the focus off the gospel for the sake of outreach.
Anyway, we have had several discussions on this blog on the theoretical aspects of emerging/emergent church. I would like to engage in a discussion on the practicalities of approaching church in this way.
Josh, perhaps you could give some thoughts on how you think things should be done differently at St Matts, and we can have a discussion on that…

I’d also be interested Josh in your thoughts on:
1. why there is a loss of Biblical centrality?
2. why there is a decline in the number of people training for ministry?
3. why there is a lack of Christ-centred mission (this would relate to point 1)

“Why is the fact that people are always changing lead to the conclusion that the church needs to change?”
Well, if we want to communicate, we need to know we’re they’re at. Communication isn’t just us speaking but us speaking and them listening and hearing and understanding and (hopefully) acting on it – and of course, us also listening and responding.
In the extreme, we must use a person’s language, otherwise we’d all speak Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek or Latin at church. But we need also to understand dialect, metaphors, slang, idiom, etc.
More practically, Jesus went around undoing the works of the devil. If we want to follow him, that’s what we should be doing too, and to do that we need to know what works of the devil are active in this person or this group of people – i.e. we need to know where they’re at. Jesus came to bring release for captives, sight to the blind, good news for the poor, freedom for the oppressed, etc, all very different problems. No point speaking against, or praying about, one problem when no-one suffers from that problem!
I used to lead a group that was “church” for some unemployed, often mentally ill or addicted people. A “sermon” (we didn’t actually have sermons) on materialism probably wouldn’t be helpful to them! It’s all things to all, to save some again.
I think sometimes we have an “ivory tower” approach to the gospel, as if it is almost the fourth person of the trinity and inviolate. The gospel is good news, and different things will always be good news for different people. I know a situation where the gospel was a friend of mine, in the name of Jesus, visiting a man who had abused his body for years and was now dying and incontinent. My friend spent an Easter weekend cleaning all sorts of stuff off walls, floor, sheets, etc. The gospel was not some holy theoretical thing, but him getting himself really filthy to show God’s love to a dying man.
If we are not careful, we’ll drive people away with our harshness, and leave people thinking God is confrontational rather than God is love.

Thats fine Unkle, but my point still stands, at what point do you generalise groupings, in order to meet together?
You cant have millions of individuals meeting in the way they want to meet with God, becasue then they will never meet together, there needs to be some sort of social compromise in order to meet as many people as we can!

Poess:
I agree. Of course we have to be practical and we can’t meet all needs at once. But that doesn’t change the principle, which you seem to accept. And it does mean we ened the guidance of the Spirit to make the best choices.

Fair enough, I am happy to meet people at some sort of generalised level in terms of meeting together as believers, but my question is this, does the Bible, within these parameters of style dictate how we might conduct ourselves in this generalised meeting (at all), or is it a free for all? I take it we arent to chant Allah is God and Mohammad his prophet for example (to be absurd), so the next question is this: What generalisations do we make in a public meeting of Christians in terms of style?

Your question has quite a factual answer, I think – the New Testament gives us a number of examples or pictures of how the early church met together, a number of teachings about how we should live life generally, but only one or two specific teachings on how things SHOULD be done in our meetings.
The two that come to mind are:
* Hebrews 10:25 simply says not to neglect meeting together and use the meetings to ENCOURAGE EACH OTHER (a mutual thing, not a one-way thing); and
* 1 Corinthians 14:26-39 follows the teaching about discipline and the work of the Holy Spirit in the church (chapters 11-14), and urges a style of meeting where EVERYONE has opportunity to edify each other, using the GIFTS the Holy Spirit has equipped us with. Something close to a charismatic brethren meeting (if such exist!) or a “house2house” house church seems to be envisaged.
(Many other passages are often applied to church meetings – e.g. 1 Tim 2:1-15 – but I can’t recall any others that explicitly refer to meetings.)
I suppose there may be reasons why we may choose not to apply those teachings rigorously, but those who accept NT authority would presumably be loth to move too far away from them.
Consequently, I can’t help feeling that our usual leader-audience model is not from the NT (as well as not being a good way to communicate or build discipleship).
I doubt that answers all your questions, but I think we are left to the guidance of the Spirit for most of them.

I wouldnt have a problem with that model you have proposed. Paul wouldnt either I take it, the issue is an issue of oredr and the right shaping of the meeting. Paul wanted order in order that people may be edified.
My guess is though, that while it may not prescribe the setting, we need to do something with the passages which talk about the gifts of preaching, and teaching. I find it hard to accept that these ministries were to be conducetd in a ‘conversation’, I take it there is some element of monologue involved here. In fact Peter uses it himself in Acts 2, an example of a ’sermon’ which is clearly shortened for writing in Acts. Take Jesus who also spoke in monologue.
I dont deny that people learn in different styles, but I believe that to throw out monologues and sermons would be overkill.

Poess
I didn’t actually mention monologue sermons here, but you must have picked up from elsewhere that I’m not their greatest fan.
But teaching is done every day in schools, and every week in home groups and house churches, without monologues, so we can encourage teachers to use other and more educationally effective methods. And as teaching is a gift mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12, we can reasonably assume that Paul would have expected it to be used in the “mutual ministry” style of meeting he envisaged, it just isn’t one of the examples he mentions.
Preaching is a different matter. I once did a full Greek word search on this, but I’m not sure I can remember it all. But I think the following is correct (you should maybe check it for yourself).
A number of different Greek words are sometimes translated “preaching”, but the meaning is not “sermonising”, rather “proclaiming”. And none of these words are mentioned in the gift lists.
So there’s no real warrant for sermons there, just an encouragement for us all to be ready to proclaim the good news and the truth about Jesus.
Having said all that, I see no reason why we shouldn’t use monologues on occasions, e.g. when a gifted speaker is making a fleeting visit, or on a special occasion, but only when that is the best method. But for day in, day out, teaching, exhorting and discipling, it is generally a self defeating method, as well as being contrary to Paul’s clear teaching.
I have to say, I think this point is quite clear, and I can’t understand why people squirm so much about it. Unless either (1) we find it so much easier to stay the way we are, or (2) professional clergy don’t want to lose control.
Thanks for the discussion.

I am professional clergy and I certainly have no control issues, I am happy to give it away, in many ways I am not competent, and others should be doing stuff.
I am not so sure it a self defeating method though, many people have been impacted by weekly preaching over the years, that fact cannot be doubted.
Is it possible that some are in a preaching ministry who shouldnt be and who therefore make life difficult for their hearers, absolutely, just like there are some people who shouldnt be pollies, or professional sportsmen etc.
This does not therefore mean it is not a good way of doing things…
Peter is an example which you have not dealt with yet, and I think your language about Paul may be a bit storng, after all, you have already said that Paul says very little about the church meeting itself (which I dont totally agree with). If he says very little, it seems that it would be hard to count something which his fellow apostles did, as being against his clear teaching.
Having said that, I believe that communication methods in teaching and preaching ought to be thought through more and more, though for me, I wouldnt lose the monologue in its place in the meeting of God’s people.
I believe that this also is able to be tweaked in such a way that we will be able to reach people who are not only on the fringes but on the outside of the community of God’s people.

G’day Rev Poess! : ) I suppose I should have guessed you were a clergyperson, but I didn’t.
I am indeed glad that you don’t have any control issues – though they are sneaky little imps, and can appear disguised as concern for Biblical order and correct doctrine!
I don’t think you have established any biblical or educational case for monologue sermons, yet you still defend them. Yes, Peter did deliver a monologue on the day of Pentecost, but (1) I did say there were special times when it was the best method, and (2) the Holy Spirit was working miracles of language and conversion on that day – do monologue sermons with THAT support and you’ll find me complaining less!
Finally, how can you say “many people have been impacted by weekly preaching over the years”? I would have thought by any performance measure (e.g. the lack of success of the church in adult evangelism, the passivity of so many congregations, and the demonstrated poor retention of sermon teaching), the method was clearly performing badly.
But I have said enough, it is really up to people like you. Best wishes.