Ever since CRF began five years ago I have said that there is absolutely no other church like us in Ashland or the surrounding area. Our philosophy of ministry (which has basically been, Bible, Bible, Bible and nothing else) has made us absolutely unique. These lectures from the Building an Old School Church Conference explain why, particularly the lecture entitled What is an Old School Church.
(This blog says that there are three other lectures not listed in the link above. I'm hoping to get them as they also resound with the sentiments of Scripture, and therefore, our work.)
While this summation will never replace the value of listening to the lecture, I would like to put forth a few of the points Pastor Web made in his What is an Old School Church, lecture.
1. There are basically two types of churches that have ever been planted: those grounded on the Old School model or those grounded in a consumer driven model. Pastor Web backs this up with some good examples.
2. Consumer driven churches become outdated and die out because the culture changes, but they don't. They ultimately are replaced with churches that fit with the "up to date culturally driven church." Again, a good example is given with the decline of today's mega church movement. Many are leaving the ranks of the large contemporary churches for more niche churches (e.g. the cowboy church, the Gen. X/Y, rave church).
What the lecture does not point out is that, ironically, the OS church model is becoming more of a rage with the 20-30 age groups. We are the generation that grew up with the fluffy, contemporary oriented, seeker driven church model. Having had our fill of it [perhaps a better way to say it would be, lack of filling], we are seeking something deeper and transcendent.
3. OS churches are planted not on the basis of what people like, but on the basis of what the Bible says. This is of course what makes OS church planting hard: it isn't appealing to the natural man. Our only hope is that God will bless His Word, and by His most wise providence, lead souls to it.
4. OS churches are not simply to be characterized as old fashioned churches. When you hear OS you automatically think, "You are talking about my grandma's church." That is a wrong stereotype though. OS church planting though embraces whatever is good throughout church history. For instance, in an OS church, you could sing an 8th century hymn (which may have been projected on a screen up front), as well as a more recent/contemporary song. The basis for incorporation is not merely that it is old, but whether or not it is biblical in its content and singable.
This is why, I might add, I say that our worship style is "classical" or "historical," rather than "traditional" or "contemporary." The worship wars have been battled out (and have pretty much fizzled out) on these two grounds "traditional" v. "contemporary." What most do not understand though is that it has been a battle of the false dilemma. Worship isn't to be a battle of the old v. the new. It should be an embrace of what is Biblical.
5. OS preaching is not only doctrinal, it is experiential and full of vitality. I could point out many other things in the lecture, but this last note of Pastor Web was superb. A lot of guys think they have maintained the OS philosophy if they give a dry, lifeless doctrinal dissertation from the pulpit. However, this is not OS.
OS preaching aims at and strikes deeply into the heart. It is true that we do not try to take a short cut, and by pass the mind--relying mainly on emotionalism and anecdotes like most (so called) preachers today. We fill our messages with content (i.e. the message!). At the same time we bring out liveliness of the Word of God, and seek to drive the Sword of the Spirit deep into the heart so that men will be led to worship and follow Christ more fervently. As my homiletics professor once said, "Never let your preaching be called boring."
4 comments:
I would think that other pastors would greatly disagree with this blog about CRF being unique due to "Bible, Bible, Bible, and nothing else." Ask Pastor Van Horn of Ashland Baptist Temple, Pastor Roby of Heritage Baptist Church, Pastor Allen of Grace Brethern Church, Pastor Abel of Southview Grace Brethren Church, Pastor Weaver of Little Flock Fellowship, Pastor Boquet of Bethel Baptist Church, Pastor White of the First Baptist Church of Ashland, and others. They would all make the claim that their philosophy of ministry is Bible, Bible, Bible, and nothing else. To make such an exclusive claim seems to look down upon other brothers, falsely accuse them of not holding the word of God as the ultimate authority, and placing oneself and one's own divided group of the local body of Christ on a pedestal above all others. Most Ashland pastors would make this same exclusive claim as to why "their" church (rather than the entire Ashland body of believers) is the best.
This reasoning also neglects that is most of the Covenant chapel bogs, the Bible does not seem to be the source of proof; rather, the "proof" seems to often be from theology books,other sermons, and the Westminster catechism. I wish we would stick to the Scriptures.
Amazing how unbiblical that Westminster Shorter Catechism is, isn't it?
Mr. Timmons, I did not say that the Westminster Catechism was unbiblical, and I do not know why you chose to use sarcasm as you did. However, if you make the claim that your "church" is unique because you use "Bible, Bible, Bible, and nothing else," then it seems like you should use the Bible, Bible, Bible, and nothing else. If, however, you use the Westminster Catechism to try to prove points, then you should say Bible, Bible, Bible, the Westminster Catechism, and some other books. Would you find fault with the Roman Catholic Church if they claimed to use the Bible and nothing else, but then taught the Bible by using the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church? My point, sir, was that many churches in Ashland would claim to use the Bible, Bible, Bible, and nothing else, and so you place your church above all others, you degrade all other Ashland pastors as not using the Bible and nothing else, as you claim to be unique in Ashland in this. I wonder if you asked any other Ashland pastors, such as those named in the previous comment, if they claimed also to use the Bible and nothing else, or if you simply decided on your own that you do and no one else in Ashland does.
I think it would be good if pastors and all Christians in Ashland would use the Bible, Bible, Bible, and nothing else. If this were to be so, I think that, as George Muller, Martin Luther, and others learned from the simple study of the Bible alone, some of their tradition that they were taught from their church or catechisms might not be quite Biblical. If it is to be Bible, Bible, Bible, and nothing else, let it be so. If it is to be Bible, Catechism, and certain theology books, then let us say so.
Brother,
I'm sorry that my previous comment sounded derisive. I did not intend it to be so. I can see how it can be taken that way, and I appologize for the lack of clarity.
I only wanted to point out that your comment was taking my post to an unwarrented extreme. The principle of Sola Scriptura (which is what I meant with Bible, Bible, and nothing else) does not exclude other resources (what may be termed Nuda Scriptura). It means that the Word is the final authority.
To say that Calvin wasn't biblical because he quoted St Francis and Augustine would be absurd. He quoted them when their words were in accord with Scripture.
As to my fellow workers here in Ashland: I adore their work and admire what they do for the Lord. I fellowship with many of them regularly, and even attend their services. Far from looking down on them, I look up to them.
Of course, I would not be planting a church here if I did not see some deficiencies. I'm sure you would agree with me on this, particularly as you do not attend any of these churches yourself.
If I might clarify a little more: the churches in Ashland are all basically the same as almost all of them follow church growth methods (mentioned in the audio posted above). While there may be a few minor differences, most of them are virtually identical.
I agree with you that the other pastors/churches would say they are being biblical. And to a great extent I think they are. Nevertheless, they are not consistently doing so because, conciously or not, they tip their hats to church growth methods.
Walk into CRF and you will see that we are radically different (i.e. Old School). It will almost be a culture shock because it is so different. Scripture fills our services, from the opening to the ending. We take a great deal of time to pray. Our songs are weighted with Biblical content (we even sing whole psalms). I believe that you will admit that these are not items that you typically find among evangelical churches here in town.
Ultimately, this is why I originally came back to Ashland: to plant a church that was thoroughly Reformed (OS/Biblically oriented). Obviously, I wouldn't have risked as much as I did if I did not believe all that has been said above.
While I'm sure that you will still have your scruples with what I've said, perhaps you can see a little more clearly what I meant by the post.
Cordially,
Post a Comment