Jeff Ling

Steve Fry, pastor of The Gate in Nashville and director of Messenger Fellowship, is the author of today’s post.

In his book, Paul, the Spirit and the People of God, Gordon Fee, recounts a time during his tenure at Regent College, when some of his students asked him this question: “ If you were to return to pastoral ministry, what would you do?” Fee says that his answer was immediate: “No matter how long it might take, I would set about with a singular passion to help a local body of believers recapture the New Testament Church’s understanding of itself as an eschatological community.”

I think that in large measure, the average local church in America doesn’t really grasp this. In the charismatic world, the emphasis on the ‘baptism in the Spirit’ is often highly individualized. Most believers – even if they do have the sense that the Holy Spirit is a person – see the Spirit’s infilling work more in terms of personal empowerment.

But what Fee is recognizing here is that our sense of self definition as a church has alarmingly shifted from that of the primitive church we read about in Acts. The first Christians knew that they as a people were to be the taste of the future for their generation in the present. The Apostle Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as “the down payment” of our future glory. What the Acts Church understood was that the Spirit’s power coming upon them and flowing through them was the sign of the future. They didn’t just look to the future; they knew that in a sense they were the future!

A wise marathon runner studies and knows the course of his race. He knows where the finish line is. Because he knows that that finish line is perhaps twenty miles away, he knows how to run his race at every point.

Knowing where the finish line is determines the way he paces himself and runs his race. For us as The Church it ought to be the same. Because the Holy Spirit indwells us individually and corporately, we should possess a keen awareness of what the ‘end’ looks like and adjust our present priorities and lifestyles in the light of that end.

To put it another way, let me ask a question. What will the end-time people of God look like? If we hold to a biblical worldview – regardless of our particular eschatological viewpoints – we know that there will be a generation who will actually witness the second coming of Christ .

We often hear talk of end time revival and ‘the glory of the lord covering the earth as the waters covers the sea.’ I for one do believe that there will be a manifestation of the glory of God in such a global fashion. What would a fully empowered Church look like just months prior to the coming of Jesus? I think there would be a passion to see lost men and women come to Jesus; I think there would be a passion to worship with abandon; I think there would be a release of authority over the enemy and power to do the works of Jesus in an unprecedented way.

I suggest that to live eschatologically, or as Gordon Fee says to define ourselves as an eschatological community, is to do precisely this: to live with the end in mind. To let the reality of the victory of Jesus at the end of the age shape who we are and what we do in the present time.

This is the message I shared at Messenger Fellowship’s One Voice conference on April 13th.

Messenger 2011 – Defend and Confirm the Gospel

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I’m in Nashville this week for the Messenger Summit. Messenger Fellowship is my ordaining body and filled with friends that are long time and close to my heart. The purpose of this summit is addressing the issues that divide the church in our day. There’s a particular focus here as it relates to the streams that seem to be polarized – particularly the missional vs revivalist (charismatic) elements within the Body of Christ. Think Andy Stanley vs. Mike Bickle.  (Their example) To me, this is a very narrow way of identifying the issue. It seems to me the issues dividing the church involve polarization and division but it’s hardly a simple issue to define.  It exists on different levels, almost like those multiple level chess boards you’d see on Star Trek. It’s not “evangelicals vs charismatics.”  What do those labels mean? Most of the people at this summit would agree that Andy Stanley and Bill Hybles are evangelical but I’m aware of a large swath of the Body that would question that. Is Brian McClaren and other emergent leaders in his stream evangelical? Would Mark Dever, John Piper and Sinclair Ferguson agree to share that label with them? On the other end, Mike Bickle is probably not a good starting point for the charismatic stream. There are more conservative starting points! But IHOP and Bickle are hardly the extreme. On the fringe are the Patricia Kings and John Crowders. So the issues as I see it revolve around at least three critical components

Gospel/Authority – the church faces a strong surge of renewed liberalism riding the white horse of justice and inclusiveness. The authority of scripture is being undermined while the gospel of God’s wrath propitiated by the atoning work of Jesus is being dismantled. As Brian McClaren himself as said – “that’s not a God worth believing in.” Where do we draw the lines that allow us to fellowship or require us to separate?

Revivalism – At what point does the church risk becoming either a gnostic community formed around ever increasing mystical experience or like the New York of post -Finney revivalism, a burned over district? How do we pursue the empowering grace of the Spirit and His gifting without creating a culture defined by the experiences we have instead of the gospel we proclaim in word and power. It seems to me that in the extremes, you can pick your entertainment: the skits and comedians of the seeker variety or the “toking the Holy Ghost” variety of John Crowder. Both means lead to ends that are self-serving for those wanting the entertainment whether they prefer the darkened auditorium of  anonymous observation or the spotlight of narcissistic outdoing of the other in goofiness.

Worship/Government – I’ll save comment on these for later. The governmental issues are less urgent for me as I do think there is latitude for understanding how church leadership functions but we do have to note an increased anti-authoritarian spirit on the loose. I’m anti-authoritarian as well when it comes to shepherds who would rather be served than serve. But leaders who are godly, responsible and loving in their leadership will always be needed. Worship requires a long hard look. Something seems askew to me. I fear we’ve laid upon music and “worship leaders” a burden that is going to be unsustainable in the years to come. I’ll save that for another time.

My ordaining body is a tribe known as Messenger Fellowship. Based in Nashville, Messenger is led by my “bishop” and dear friend Steve Fry. This article is the first of a three part series on the presence of God, a subject that I can tell you from experience is not theory for Steve – it is a paramount value and the pursuit of his life. – Jeff

The Presence of God is the central theme of Scripture. The fact that God is, is the cornerstone of everything else. His Presence encompasses His glory, His character and His ways. His Presence defines His missions of Creation and Redemption. His Presence underscores His ultimate purpose for this universe: to manifest His glory through the exaltation of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:9).

A focus on the presence of God seems, at first glance, to be the domain of Charismatic Christians – those who are by definition more prone to experience than rationality. Much of The Church has tended to marginalize the Presence of God to the realm of experience. We tend to define it in terms of the mystical and mysterious. Mention ‘The Presence’ to some believers, and words like worship, prayer, the prophetic, manifest glory, supernatural gifts, power, revelation, and so forth readily come to mind. Phrases that describe encounter.

Read more…