Would Paul have used video? Here’s a better question…

medium_8560520304

If Paul were ministering today, would he use video?

This is an important question, and it’s not one that is as clear cut as you might think. Many who have embraced video venue gatherings point to Paul as their example. Because he was all about becoming all things to all people in the hopes of winning some to the gospel, he would surely use any (non-sinful) means at his disposal to extend the reach of the gospel.

That’s generally how I’ve seen the argument go, anyway. (I realize I’m probably oversimplifying a bit.)

The question of whether or not Paul would use video is an important one, but I wonder if it might also be the wrong one.

Would Paul use video to share the gospel? Probably, sure. But, more importantly, what would he use it for?

See, here’s the thing with Paul—he was, by and large, an itinerant minister. With the exception of his time in Ephesus, he never seemed to stay in one place all that long. His ambition was “to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest [he] build on someone else’s foundation” (Romans 15:20). This wasn’t a vanity thing for him—he simply wanted as many people as possible to hear the good news about Jesus.

He was all about fulfilling the great commission.

But he would frequently communicate with other churches. Some, like the churches in Galatia, Ephesus and Thessalonica, were ones he played an integral role in starting. Others, like the church in Colossae and (likely) Rome, were established by others. But regardless of his connection, Paul wrote to teach, correct, encourage, and strengthen them in the gospel.

But he also wasn’t their pastor. Even in the churches he had helped start, he had commanded that elders be established to equip “the saints for the work of ministry” (Ephesians 4:12). These elders were the ones charged with “keeping watch over [their] souls, as those who will have to give an account” (Hebrews 13:17). These were the ones who would regularly proclaim God’s Word and teach the believers.

So what was Paul? Paul was not serving as the primary teaching pastor of any of these churches. He didn’t need to. These churches had faithful men like Titus, Timothy, and so many others. In his letters, he might be better viewed as the guest preacher.

And when you look at Paul’s letters more closely, there’s another interesting thing: this expectation that those letters will be shared with other churches. In Colossians 4:16, for example, he explicitly told them, “when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.” Similarly in 1 Thessalonians 5:27, he made them swear they would “have this letter read to all the brothers.”

So even letters meant for specific churches weren’t meant for them exclusively.

So that takes us back to the real question:

If Paul had access to the technology in his time, what would he have used video for?

Here’s my hunch, with all the necessary caveats in place: I suspect Paul’s use of video might look similar to an event like Secret Church.

If you don’t know the concept, Secret Church is an intensive six-plus hour Bible study modelled after the meetings of the underground church in countries where religious freedom is either extremely restricted or entirely nonexistent. The idea is to “take what we’ve learned and pass it along to others … to use what we’ve learned during this gathering to make disciples of Christ—both locally and globally.”

They host a live event and simulcast it to host churches and homes around the world. This isn’t making TV screens serve as pastors, or extending the brand of a single man. The goal is to teach, correct, encourage, and strengthen believers in the gospel, while also encouraging the spread of the gospel.

I might be crazy, but that certainly sounds an awful like Paul’s model, doesn’t it?


photo credit: ACOUSTIC DIMENSIONS via photopin cc

Links I like

The Joy of Getting Unstuck

Brandon Smith:

Earlier this year, I ran headfirst into a wall. With all of the busyness of life, I nearly locked myself in a closet and tried to disappear. I felt overwhelmed and driven into the ground. I was an old pickup truck with a busted engine and four flat tires. I was stuck.

Truthfully, I had taken my eyes off of God and put them on myself.

The Uselessness of the Twitter Battles

Trevin Wax:

Twitter is a place for conversation, but once we go into battle mode, I think the legitimate conversation is already over. Twitter battles are like putting on a spectacle for the perverse pleasure (or dismay) of the Twitter audience. Has anyone watching one of these debacles ever said, “You know what? You convinced me! I’m wrong and you’re right.” No one. Ever.

I’ve declined to engage in most Twitter debates, but after jumping into the ring a time or two, I’ve decided not to do so anymore. I love conversing on Twitter, but once I see the conversation devolving into the battle, from this point on, I’m going to step out. Here’s why.

David Platt on Heaven is For Real

HT: Jeff Medders

The Church Needs Philosophers and Philosophers Need the Church

Paul Gould:

The church needs philosophers. But we Christian philosophers need the church too. We need to be reminded daily that the Western canon of intellectual history is not our “real food.” To paraphrase Jesus, “Man does not live on Descartes and Kant alone, but on the word of God.” We need to be reminded of the Great Commission. Remind us that Jesus, and not a solution to the problem of universals, is the world’s greatest need.

In Which Calvin Defends Lip-Gloss

Derek Rishmawy:

A number of these young women have grown up in difficult and abusive homes. Some don’t have mothers. Others had never had a stitch of makeup on in their lives and wouldn’t know where to start. And so, my wife, expert that she is, taught them how to wash their faces, massaged them, and then helped them understand how to use makeup in a way that amplifies and accentuates their natural features–eyes, cheeks, lashes, and lips–instead of drowning them out in a wash of paint.

I see this as a service and not simply a misguided encouragement to vanity, and to make my case, I’d like to call to the stand a witness: Genevan Reformer John Calvin’s theology of the body.

Around the Interweb

“Do We Really Believe What We’re Saying?”

David Platt offers a powerful challenge to fight not only intellectual universalism, but also functional universalism:

HT: JT

Also Worth Reading

Satire: A Recently Discovered Letter of Critique Written to the Apostle Paul

Encouragement: No longer a slave

Quote: “Why do bad things happen to good people? That only happened once, and He volunteered.” R.C. Sproul (via Twitter)

Thought-Provoking: The New Evangelical Virtues

In Case You Missed It

Here are a few of this week’s notable posts:

Perspicuity and Presuppositions

The Excellency That Not Everyone Saw

Book Review: Unplanned by Abby Johnson

So, What is Universalism, Anyway? (from John Piper’s Jesus: The Only Way to God)

My Memory Moleskine: Do Not Be Anxious

Thomas Watson: A Sickbed Often Teaches More Than A Sermon

Book Review: Radical by David Platt

radical-platt

“Do we really believe [Jesus] is worth abandoning everything for?” asks pastor & author David Platt in his new book, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream. “Do you and I really believe that Jesus is so good, so satisfying, and so rewarding that we will leave all we have and all we own and all we are in order to find our fullness in him?” (pp. 18-19)

As Christians living in the very comfortable Western world, having “our best life now” is really appealing. After all, if God gives good gifts to those who love Him, wouldn’t it include a big house, a big backyard, a big state-of-the-art church facility, a big latte and maybe a lot of money in the bank account?

While none of this is inherently wrong, Plant wonders if we are “settling for a Christianity that revolves around catering to ourselves when the central message of Christianity is actually about abandoning ourselves.” And in Radical, he seeks to remind readers of the biblical gospel and that its implications mean the death of the American Dream—that we’re called to spend our lives on others, rather than merely spend our cash on ourselves.

There is much to enjoy about and be challenged by in Radical. Platt’s focus is less on showing readers a specific road to take (“here’s how you should do XYZ…”) and more about building a bigger vision for mission and reaching the nations for God’s glory.

In many ways, what Platt seeks to do is much the same as what John Piper has done in Let the Nations Be Glad and Don’t Waste Your Life—by providing Christians with a much-needed corrective to the overstated (and under-realized) notion that the days of overseas missions are over. That our focus can and should only be on local missions, if we have any sort of focus at all beyond a Christianized version of the American Dream.

As Platt notes, with over 2 billion people (as a conservative estimate) never having heard the gospel, one can hardly say that the days of overseas missions have passed us by.

At the same time, he doesn’t want to suggest that missions only happens overseas.

In Canada (where I live), generous estimates place the number of Christians in the population at around 8.5 percent. And as our population changes, there are more and more people who have never heard the gospel. The unreached are both at home and abroad. (It’s why missionaries are coming to Canada and the United States from countries which, two generations ago, we would have sent them to!)

What I especially appreciate about Platt’s book is this focus. That, even as he talks about poverty and how we in North America can be generous in caring for the poor, the goal is not alleviating poverty. The goal is seeing people meet Jesus. Platt writes,

The point is not simply to meet a temporary need or change a startling statistic; the point is to exalt the glory of Christ as we express the gospel of Christ through the radical generosity of our lives. (p. 135)

Perhaps the thing I enjoyed most about Radicalis the Radical Experiment—Platt’s challenge to put into practice what’s been learned through the book. As a pastor, he knows full well that unless there’s a way to apply knowledge, it will never move from the head to the heart. His one year challenge is shockingly simple, yet terribly complex:

  1. Pray for the entire world. Pray for specific needs among the nations.
  2. Read through the entire Word. Get through the entirety of Scripture in one year. Use a plan, read cover-to-cover… whatever you do, commit to doing this.
  3. Sacrifice money for a specific purpose. Research an organization that loves Jesus, that explicitly spreads His gospel, that serves His church and is trustworthy with finances.
  4. Spend time in another context. Whether it’s overseas for a short term missions trip or the soup kitchen downtown, go and be with people who aren’t like you.
  5. Commit our lives to multiplying communities. Be a part of a local church that is growing, making disciples and sending people out. Serve faithfully and pray fervently for it. And if you’re not in one, get into one.

This is a powerful challenge, one that I’m praying over how it would look in my life. I’m looking forward to what God shows me in response.

Perhaps the thing that struck me funny reading this book was something I found to be a bit of an oversimplification on Platt’s part. ON page 76, he writes:

But even if we were to do these things [helping the sick, feeding the hungry, strengthening the church in the neediest areas of the country] we would still be overlooking a foundational biblical truth when we say our hearts are for the United States. As we have seen all over Scripture, God’s heart is for the world. So when we say we have a heart for the Unites States, we are admitting that we have a meager 5 percent of God’s heart, and we ware proud of it. When we say we have a heart for the city we live in, we confess that we have less than 1 percent of God’s heart.

While I get what he’s trying to say, I can’t disagree strongly enough. While in some cases people can and do use the term of “having a heart for this city” as a cover for apathy (because their lives don’t reflect this heart), to say that if someone genuinely has a heart for the United States, New York State or San Francisco is ridiculous—and insulting. Such an oversimplification (while unintentional, I believe) runs the risk of devaluing one’s sense of calling and mission from God. Instead, it’s more likely that such a person has 100 percent of God’s heart for that city, state or country.

We need more men and women who have a genuine heart for their contexts, and it does nothing for their spirits to suggest that they somehow lack the fullness of God’s heart for the lost.

“Will we risk everything—our comfort, our possessions, our safety, our security, our very lives—to make the gospel known among unreached people?” This is the challenge that Platt puts to his readers (p. 160). What are we willing to sacrifice? What idols are holding us back? Will we give it up for the glory of Christ to be made known and to see more people reached with His gospel?

This is not an easy question to answer—but it’s one that I believe we need to wrestle with. And Radical forces us to do exactly that.

Read the book, be challenged and see how God might transform your life for His global purposes.


Title: Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream
Author: David Platt
Publisher: Multnomah (2010)

David Platt on the South & Young Pastors

Dustin Neeley sat down with David Platt, Pastor of the Church of Brook Hills in Birmingham, AL and author of Radical, at the Advance the Church 2010 Conference. In this video, he shares his thoughts about the Spiritual Landscape of the South, his counsel for younger leaders, and his “one thing” for pastors.

HT: The Resurgence