I was helping a friend prepare for his licensure exam. I was dismayed when he showed me a sample copy of the test; there was as much about interpretive systems and theological jargon as about Bible content! I lamented, “How will this provide an accurate indication of whether my friend ‘correctly handles the word of truth?’”
Another friend, an evangelist-church planter, has eschewed licensure and ordination saying, “I don’t need that to do what God has called me to do.” A postmodern reaction to a highly developed system that may have at one time served a valid purpose, but no longer responds to current needs.
But might there be some middle ground between these hyper-theological* and “Just say no!” approaches to biblical preparation for ministry? The former could be filtering out all but would-be theologians, potentially excluding apostles, prophets, evangelists and shepherds, and the latter leads to pragmatism, potentially leading away from biblically rooted ministry.
Leaders or followers?
In chapter 8 of Anthropological Insights for Missionaries, Paul Hiebert presents the “self-theologizing” principle for use in cross-cultural, church planting situations. His insights are pertinent in this transitional period as leaders guide local churches out of confident modernity through suspicious postmodernity.
Dr. Hiebert writes, “It is essential that we train leaders who can wrestle with the theological issues that emerge within their cultural context (2 Tim. 2:2).”
There are few things to which we Grace Brethren should shout a louder, “Amen!” We want to develop men and women of the Word. We must realize, however, that “it is much harder to train leaders, for we must teach them to think for themselves, to disagree with us, and to stand for their own convictions. We must learn to accept debates and honest disagreements on tough theological issues without cutting off a [postmodern] brother or sister” (216).
And we must realize that without this type of prayerful, direct interaction with the Scriptures, we do not train leaders but followers “who merely believe what we say and imitate us” (215). But those who simply replicate applications of Scripture that were relevant during the 20th century’s liberal wars of religion will find themselves increasingly irrelevant in the 21st century’s proliferation of spiritualities.
And by demanding that emerging leaders believe identically like we modernists do, many of the strong may leave in frustration because they have not had the freedom and opportunity to participate in a dynamic, theologizing process (235).
Theological orientation?
As a church planter, I had wondered what would happen when I was no longer present to influence the theological orientation of the Dijon church. As my wife and I transitioned the church over to French leadership we recognized the accuracy of Hiebert’s words, “there is no way to guarantee the preservation of our theological convictions. We can write them in creeds and constitutions and can police churches and schools. But those who succeed us will come to their own convictions. Each generation in the church must come to its own living faith. Secondhand beliefs will not do” (216).
One Sunday morning, I sat listening to Franck, the Dijon church pastor, teaching from Scripture about healing. I was amazed because I could have preached the exact same content (only Franck presented it much better)! Even though we had never specifically discussed the subject our convictions were almost identical. How could this be if I never taught him? After all, I was his trainer and mentor!
My guess is that this common conviction was a result of relationship (some theology is more caught than taught) and because we approach Scripture utilizing a biblical theological approach and a common hermeneutic (grammatical-historical-contextual-prayerful).
Spiritual immaturity?
So should emerging postmodern leaders of Grace Brethren churches assume the responsibility and have the “right to understand and apply the gospel in their own settings? Is there not a danger that they will go theologically astray? The answer to both of these questions is yes. To grow, spiritually young churches must search the Scriptures themselves, and if—for fear that they well leave the truth—we do not allow them to do so, we condemn them to spiritual infancy and early death. On the other hand, to allow people to study the Scriptures for themselves always entails some risk” (208).
But as Hiebert says, “The Scriptures… speak of the priesthood of all believers. We need to teach all Christians to study and interpret the Bible for themselves and to apply its message to their lives. To deny them this is to keep them spiritually immature.”
I believe that Hiebert's "self-theologizing" approach to biblical truth is throughly in harmony with our Grace Brethren heritage and is a key to biblical mission. Young leaders are needed, guided by the Spirit of God, accompanied by gifted people, committed to the absolute truth of the Living Word, studying and applying it in fresh ways in their localities if we want to see local churches, not simply survive, but thrive and hive** into the postmodern future.
* theology: not in the sense of “knowledge of God” but rather of “a religious theory, school of thought, or system of belief.”
** "Hiving" is a term French church planters use for church multiplication. Just as bees form new cells onto a hive, churches “hive” out with new groups.
