I like this definition of a parable..
“A parable is an extended metaphor and as such it is not a delivery system for an idea but a house in which the reader/listener is invited to take up residence…If the parable is a house in which the listener/reader is invited to take up residence, then that person is urged by the parable to look on the world through the windows of that residence.” (Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Kenneth E. Bailey)
I have always described a parable to my students as a story that uses something you know to describe something that you do not.
i.e. fishermen, farmers, servants, a fine pearl, a field.. all are in some ways used by Jesus to describe the Kingdom of God.
Why were parables a favorite venue for Jesus?
Simply because He himself is a parable. Jesus (looks, acts, eats, drinks, plays, laughs, gets angry.. just like a human being) is something we know, and yet he is a parable for a God who we do not have the capacity to understand. God sent us Himself as a parable so that we might understand. Now, as in all parables in the bible Jesus explains them to his apostles while the others in the crowd seem to scratch their heads. This happens today through the Holy Spirit who reveals the truth in the Word to believers, while those who are inclined to not believe still go away scratching their heads.
Now, what does this have to do with us?
We, now that Jesus has ascended are to be a parable of Jesus. We, through our lives as Christians are supposed to point to a Jesus that the world simply cannot understand without the Church and the Holy Spirit working in tandem. This is why it is vitally important, and not just a novelty to live as citizens of the Kingdom and not as citizens of this world. Now the mystery unfolds more and more..
So, the big question that sometimes divides denominations. We need to understand that works righteousness (working for your salvation, which is impossible) is not the same as Sanctification (being made holy, which is possible and necessary). Our sanctified lives (being made more holy by the power of the Holy Spirit through conviction and repentance) is not a means to ensure our salvation, but is really a way to become more and more of parable of Jesus so that some might be saved! (again, by the way this is done not by your ability but by the Holy Spirit) Paul talks about this extensively… but too often it becomes a point of contention that divides us as Christians, especially down the lines of “once saved always saved” “free will” “election or pre-determination” “infallibility of scripture” etc.. we argue about these things and yet when we understand the nature of the parable of our lives, we can all find common ground even in these seemingly differing views. In God’s timeless Kingdom we can be pre-determined and yet still have free will. In God’s timeless Kingdom we can turn from God and yet still be eternally saved. With God’s intervention through His Holy Spirit scripture can be infallible and yet still have textual errors due to mans intervention. In this Kingdom life everything rests on the mysterious actions of the Holy Spirit in our lives that occur at all times, never stopping, making you sanctified and holy that others might find Christ.. all for the Glory of God and not for man..
Ed recently answered a few questions for Duke Divinity. He is is charge of research for Lifeway. What are your thoughts?
In what I am sure was a clerical error, the folks at Duke Divinity recently asked me to respond to some questions about the state of the church and some other issues. I have deleted the Duke-specific part and am posting the rest here.
Questions on the Church and Seminaries
I. Church (Relate your answer to (1) congregations, (2) associations and regions, and (3) the denomination.)
1. What is your sense of the health of the Church?
First, I would say “health of the churches.” 
I would say that it is hard to answer that because the churches are so different. Mainline denominations are no longer bleeding–they are hemorrhaging. Increasingly, they are simply managing their decline, not reaching out to others.
For evangelicals, the picture is better, but that is only by comparison to the great decline of the mainline churches. Southern Baptists have peaked and trends indicate they will decline over the next several decades. The same can be said of many evangelical denominations, though the recent ARIS study indicated that there was actually an increase in self-evangelicals (coupled with a decrease of self-identified Christians).
Only two Christian denominations (out of the top 25) are growing: the Assemblies of God and the Church of God (Cleveland, TN). (The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses were also in the top 25 and growing, but I would consider them “other faiths” and not Christian denominations.)
So, Pentecostalism is doing OK. Evangelicalism is flat but showing signs of a cracking foundation. The mainline is dying.
2. What are your greatest worries about the Church?
I will list several for the congregation.
1. The loss of focus on the gospel.
Much of the current church scene has become an exercise in moralism without an appeal to gospel transformation. This is true in traditional church settings (which teach what you should NOT do) and contemporary church setting (which give you five things you SHOULD do). The difficulty is that neither focus on the live shaped transformed and shaped by the gospel.
2. A lack of discipleship.
I doubt I need to list the studies (including Reveal by Willow, The Shape of Faith to Come but LifeWay Research, and others) that indicate discipleship is in rough shape. If the churches fail to produce robust disciples, we will continue to lose the next generation to nominalism and will fail to engaging people without Christ who will find out lives (and thus our faith) unappealing at best, and hypocritical at worst.
3. The danger of cultural captivity.
I am one who thinks that the church has to look similar to the world and live different. That is not the pattern we see. Today, many churches look more like a past era than a transforming gospel. Thus, I think that churches need to engage their cultures through their service, actions, forms, and approaches. If not, they become obscure the gospel to a world that believes being a Christian means changing your music, your clothes, and your political party affiliation, rather than being changed by the work of Christ on the cross.
II. Ministry (Clergy)
1. What role do clergy/ministerial leadership contribute to either the health or sickness of the church?
It depends on the pastor, I would think.
Most pastors tend to see their role as that of a caretaker. Most people want to be cared for. Thus, the church continues as a dispenser of religious goods and services with the clergy acting as spiritual shopkeeper–caring for needs while distributing religious services. The end result is a disempowered laity and a co-dependent pastor.
But, there are also many bright spots where pastors have empowered, trained, and sent out men and women into mission and ministry.
2. How do seminaries form clergy/ministers to be effective and faithful church leaders?
Again, it depends on the school, I would think.
Most seminaries don’t do what most incoming church-bound seminarians think they are going to do–prepare them to be pastors. Seminaries tend not to be particularly good at making leaders who lead churches. Since seminaries tend to be staffed by scholars, who are generally not strong congregational leaders, they provide scholarship and not leadership. This is fine–but not what most church-bound leaders are expecting.
However, I am not one who thinks that graduate education should be a checklist of ministerial functions wrapped up in course numbers: “How to Preach” 2432, “How to Lead” 8544, etc.
I think that effective seminaries will partner with churches that provide hands-on modeling and mentoring to form church leaders, while the classroom is helping to foster and biblically-shaped and theologically-driven ministry outlook. However, in my own teaching experience, I have seen few that actually do this.
I am an advocate of both revitalizing and planting churches. I am not an advocate of keeping a worshiping community together just to keep a legacy alive, unfortunately this is the category many churches find themselves in now. I am also a believer in the fact that when you finally decide to take the revitalization route, you have to go and read the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, and really understand that when Jesus says we need to be born again that this applies to a community of believers as well as the individual believer. Revitalization often means that the old habits and sometimes traditions and legacy’s have to die in order for the community to be reborn. I also believe that we must understand that revitalizing sometimes means picking up our ties to a certain piece of land and moving to another piece of land because God is moving over there and desires that we move in concert with Him there. Worshiping communities must become more fluid in order to reach a more fluid generation for Christ, this means that laying a foundation for a building does not mean the roots of the worshiping community are forever tied to that land. We must remember that to God, Israel is always a people and not a country. The same mentality that had the Israelites tie themselves to a piece of land for their identity, causing them great angst in Babylonian captivity, even though God said that they were to bloom where planted, can creep into the modern Christian Church if we are not careful. The Church is a fluid people working for the good of the Kingdom, moving, living, serving, and liquid.
I found a great article by J.D. Greear located here: http://jdgreear.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/03/should-you-revitalize-a-church-or-plant-a-new-one.html
I have pasted it in its entirety here:
I have had a lot of discussions recently on whether or not you should try to “revitalize a church” or go plant. Obviously, different situations will require different solutions, and only God can tell you, but I will share a number of thoughts in the coming posts… and would love your feedback. Here’s an opening thought.
Thought #1: Ask, “What exactly am I trying to rescue in attempting to revitalize this church?”
You should only revitalize a church out of care for its present members and excitement about its future potential, not because of its institutional glory in the past. Many times we want to “revitalize” a church because we (or others) remember how great the church used to be. We (rightly so) are saddened by seeing a once thriving church in decline. So, we want to “save” the institution and restore it to its glory days. However, I believe you should look at any particular “local church” as simply the people who are CURRENTLY attending, not as an institutional legacy. Local churches are contemporary covenant communities, and always in flux. A local church is a type of institution, but no one local church is an institution that lasts forever. Jesus died to redeem the one, universal church and will preserve that forever. Local covenant communities are essential to the plan of God, but they only consist of the present members, not the historical legacy. In heaven, there will be no “Summit Church,” “First Baptist Dallas,” “Redeemer Presbyterian,” etc. So, if you want to “revitalize” a church, do so because of care for its present members or excitement over its potential future, but never as an attempt to restore the institutional glory of the past.
What about trying to revitalize a church to save the property? This is tricky… because on the one hand, you hate to see the sacrifices of previous generations go to waste, and millions of dollars of property once dedicated to kingdom purposes be “lost.” In some cases it is most certainly wise to spend the time “saving” the property. However, on the other hand, here are two reasons why trying to rescue “the property” is not as important: 1. The Bible repeatedly instructs us that we should look to God today to meet the needs for the ministry we are doing today. The story of God’s provision in the manna shows you that God does not want us to depend on His provision yesterday for what we need today. We do not need to depend on the resources of yesterday to take the Kingdom forward today. 2. Practically speaking, you will (in many if not most cases) waste a number of years of your life and a lot of money trying to redeem the property, money and time that could be better spent starting something new.