This summer I’m doing an internship at Seacoast Church with Josh Surratt. It’s required for my major at school, and it’s a great privilege to learn from the staff at Seacoast. I’ve decided to spend Wednesdays this summer talking about what I’m learning.

So, here’s the first principle: There’s no “I” in preach.

(Nobody’s actually used that phrase at Seacoast that I’m aware of, so don’t blame them for its lameness.)

Every Monday there’s a message prep meeting at Seacoast where several leaders from various ministries in the church get together to work on the message for Sunday. Rather than having one guy in a room with some commentaries all by himself, they put a few minds together and help shape the outline, phrasing, and illustrations.

I love this because it isn’t just a “creative team” taking a message that’s already written trying to come up with elements to incorporate in the service… it’s actually a group of people who are helping write a message.

If I’m ever in the position to lead a church, I’m definitely going to try to implement this principle. Here are some thoughts on how this might look for me someday:

1. The person preaching that week will spend time in personal study. Reading the passage, praying for the Spirit’s illumination and direction, reading commentaries, etc.
2. The person will then write a short exegetical summary of the text. What’s the author communicating in the passage? What’s the outline of the argument/principle in the passage? What are some theological principles revealed in the passage?
3. This summary will be sent to the other people on the message team. They will spend some time wrestling with the exegesis themselves, and think of different ways to approach and illustrate the content.
4. We will all meet and discuss the various ideas, brainstorming different outlines for the message and different ways to phrase the major moves of the message.
5. We will leave the meeting with a well-crafted statement of the main idea of the message, and a general outline.
6. The person preaching will finish writing the message.

Obviously these are my initial thoughts on how it could work in an ideal world. I’m sure I’ll change and refine this as I process more. I’m aware that it’s unrealistic based on the way your church is set up, but remember, this is my fantasy church.

Regardless of how this looks in your context, get people involved in the message writing process. More heads are better than one. There’s no “I” in preach. Who’s gonna be on your team? Get some girls, too.

Where there are no oxen, the manger is clean,
but abundant crops come by the strength of the ox. Proverbs 14:4 ESV

Here, the point is simple: life is easier without the oxen.

Why? The manger is clean.

In ministry, there’s constantly a temptation to get rid of the oxen.

• “We could spend the extra $500 and get a better quality guitar amp, but it’s just for the student ministry anyway…”

• “We could keep setting up the booth in the lobby, but it’s such a hassle every week…”

• “We could do ALL of that for the event like last year, but it’s so hard rallying people to tear it down afterwards…”

You can insert your own: “We could _______________________, but…”

Our tendency is to make decisions that get rid of the oxen so that there’s less clean up time.

But what’s the catch? You need the oxen in order to have abundant crops.

You’re right. The ox isn’t necessary. You can accomplish whatever project without it. You can produce crops either way.

But you can’t produce abundant crops… you can’t have excellence… without the oxen.

What’s the ox in your ministry? What’s the thing you’re tempted to STOP just because it’s more work on you?

Don’t stop. Keep the oxen. You’ll sacrifice abundant crops. You’ll compromise excellence.

The last few years I’ve experienced a lot of pushback on the “modern American church.” I’ve noticed that people tend to voice their disagreements to me because I speak highly of Andy Stanley, and they look at my dad’s blog and see how much he talks about leadership, which is one of the “new values” of the “modern American church.” I guess that makes me qualified to discuss this with them…?

To get everybody on the same page… here’s some short buzz items to describe what I mean by “modern American church”:

• Values church growth
• Has a cool worship band
• Likes the multi-site idea
• Small groups (what’s Sunday School anyway?)
• Has a Twitter account
• Admires Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Andy Stanley, etc.
• Talks about leadership development

Now, if I were to boil down the arguments of all the people who oppose these things, here’s what it would be:

You win people to what you win them with.

Translation: If a person comes to your church because you have cool lights and a cool worship service and cool programs for their kids, then they become committed to cool lights, services and programs for their kids… not Jesus Christ or the gospel.

And there’s huge truth to that. Church-hoppers are in the market for the “right” church. If another church comes along that offers a better product than the current one, or the current church no longer brings satisfaction, then they’ll just go to another church. Easy.

The response, then, is to criticize churches that are striving to be modern. Why try to be “cool” if you’re just going to win people to a “cool” church?

I think the debate consistently neglects the right definition of contextualization. With the right definition, I think both sides gain merit, tension grows for both sides to alter the way they do ministry, and the Church (big C) becomes more effective.

Contextualization is getting out of the way… not paving the way.

This is a very slight difference that changes the paradigm surrounding church models. The church’s job is to remove distractions, not to make Jesus seem more appealing.

Here’s how that plays out:

• Relevant worship music is used because that removes an obstacle- people would expect to hear music like this.
• Lights are used because that removes an obstacle- that’s what people would typically see today if music were being played on a stage.
• Leadership strategies are implemented because that removes an obstacle- poor organizational culture only hinders the work of the church.

You don’t play relevant music to make people see how cool Jesus is. You play relevant music so people are still listening when you tell them how cool Jesus is.

This is huge for both sides.

1. You can’t decide to avoid relevance in the church because then you lose your voice in culture.
2.  You can’t try to win people with relevance because then you win them to relevance… not to Christ.

Both sides get in the way of the gospel. Ultimately only the Spirit will save a person, so our job is to get out of the Spirit’s way. Our job is to be contextual.

I’ve seen a lot of interesting things in Europe so far. I’ve spent the first few days in Rome, and on Monday I went to the Vatican. Our group got to see the Sisteen chapel, St. Peter’s Basilica, the world’s largest collection of historical artifacts, and a bunch of other really cool stuff. (What an uncultured way to describe it: really cool stuff)

The church is so beautiful, but it was so weird seeing a place that used to be used for worship being used as a museum. Tourists from all over the world come to experience the beauty of the architecture and art, but what does that reflect about the church itself?

It’s almost as if people come to observe “what people used to believe”, as if Christianity is a thing of the past. When the church building becomes a museum instead of a gathering place for people to come and worship the living God, true Christianity dies.

Most people would agree that’s true, but I wonder what implications that might have for the church in the North American context. When we are too attached to the past, we can lose anticipation and motivation for the future. Andy Stanley says, “When your memories exceed your dreams, the end is near.”

While this is true, I don’t think this means we should abandon tradition altogether. We have to embrace our Christian heritage, without compromising the vision and mission of the gospel. It’s a tension that must be managed.

What are your thoughts on the tension between the past and future? How does the church embrace tradition without becoming traditional? How does the church celebrate a legacy without becoming a museum?

When I was in elementary school I remember going on a trip with my family and a few other families to observe “contemporary services” at a few churches in Birmingham, AL. Our family was at a large traditional church at the time, and they were considering the possibility of adding a contemporary service.

Contemporary services are second nature now. Everybody has some form or variation. What’s interesting to me, though, is how churches think that having a contemporary service automatically makes them more likely to grow and reach young people. The thought is that by having a guitar on stage and letting people wear jeans that somehow young people will want to come to church. (Ironically, these are also often the same people who criticize churches for “entertaining people” and watering down the gospel.)

Contemporary services may have been a big deal to previous generations, but most everybody in my generation thinks of the contemporary church as normal. I don’t know anybody my age who would be shocked and marvel at a worship team, or who would be surprised they could dress casually. The contemporary church is not the draw it used to be.

The problem with this is that churches are just getting back into the same traditional cycle they tried to leave. Fifteen years ago, services geared towards college students were new and exciting. Today, those services are the norm. Nothing new has emerged for students (at least that I’m aware of).

It doesn’t take an expert to see that something else is coming. Something new is going to emerge. Based on a few conversations I’ve had with church leaders who are a little older than I am, I’d say it has less to do with a style and more to do with an attitude of intentionality. To use Rick Warren terminology, it’s going to be a purposeful process of moving people from “come and see” to “come and die”. This really excites me, because I think that’s what I’m most gifted and passionate about.

You’ve probably seen this same dynamic I’m talking about, so in your mind, what’s next? What’s the new thing coming? What big shift will the church take? How should the church change? What’s the next “contemporary”?